You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Laparoscopy and Robotics: Benign Disease1 Apr 2015PD21-11 THE DYNAMIC URINE VIBRATION HALTER: A NEW OUTPATIENT DEVICE FOR REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING OF UROFLOW Jerry Blaivas, Matthew Benedon, James Weinberger, Yosi Rozenberg, Lior Ravid, and Jonathan Vapnek Jerry BlaivasJerry Blaivas More articles by this author , Matthew BenedonMatthew Benedon More articles by this author , James WeinbergerJames Weinberger More articles by this author , Yosi RozenbergYosi Rozenberg More articles by this author , Lior RavidLior Ravid More articles by this author , and Jonathan VapnekJonathan Vapnek More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1440AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The aim of the study is to compare uroflow parameters measured by a standard gravimetric uroflowmeter (GF) with the Dynamic Urine Vibration Halter (DUVH). METHODS The DUVH measures flow characteristics inside the urethra. A removable, small, vibro-acoustic sensor connected to a portable recorder is placed on the dorsum of the penis. Vibratory data during voiding is captured, stored, analysed by algorithms, and displayed. A prospective IRB approved study was conducted at two outpatient urology centers. Consecutive men were recruited. Subjects were instructed to urinate into GF while wearing the DUVH. Uroflow parameters recorded by the DUVH (voided volume [VV], maximum flow rate [Qmax], voiding time, flow time, average flow rate [Qavg]) were compared with the gravimetric flows using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (Pearson's r). Exclusion criteria included inability to void, penile or sphincter prosthesis & improper use of the device. RESULTS 73 patients were recruited of whom 6 were excluded - 1 was unable to void. One had an intermittent stream that was not captured on the GF (the DUVH recognized all segments). In four patients, the DUVH recording was technically flawed. The measured parameters were equivalent between the two devices (table 1). Figure 1 shows representative tracings and figure 2 shows comparison of the two devices. The quantitative measures showed excellent correlation, but as seen in fig 2, there were 6 uroflow outliers, 4 of whom had a poor signal on the DUVH. There was a difference in Qmax of <3 ml/s in 79% (53/67). CONCLUSIONS The DUVH is a promising new technology for remote patient monitoring of uroflow. Further work needs to be done to increase the accuracy of this tool. Table 1. Comparison of measured parameters: DUVH vs. GF Qmax (ml/s) VV (ml) Qavg (ml/s) Voiding Time (s) Flow Time (s) DUVH 11.5±5.7 213.1±134.8 6.5±3.5 39.3±22.3 33.1±15.2 GF 11.8±5.8 216.7±132.8 6.2±3.2 46.0±29.8 35.2±18.9 Pearson’s r 0.87 0.92 0.81 0.70 0.78 p-value 0.74 0.88 0.71 0.14 0.48 © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e475 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jerry Blaivas More articles by this author Matthew Benedon More articles by this author James Weinberger More articles by this author Yosi Rozenberg More articles by this author Lior Ravid More articles by this author Jonathan Vapnek More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...