Table 3 Comparison between PF studies and non-invasive EMG uroflowmetry
From: A comparative study between EMG uroflowmetry with and without a catheter in children
Non-invasive EMG uroflowmetry | Pressure Flow study | Children with concordant data | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Voiding curve | ||||
Total | 70(100%) | 70 (100%) | 30/70 (42%) | - |
Bell Shape | 33 (47%) | 19 (27%) | 13/70 (18%) | 0.02 |
Interrupted | 15 (21%) | 13 (19%) | 5/70 (7%) | 0.09 |
Staccato | 11 (16%) | 22 (32%) | 5/70 (7%) | 0.2 |
Plateau | 8(11%) | 15 (21%) | 6/70 (8%) | <0.001 |
Tower | 3 (4%) | 1 (1%) | 1/70 (1%) | 0.04 |
Pelvic-floor muscle activity | ||||
Total | 70 (100%) | 70 (100%) | 36/70 (51%) | - |
Relaxed | 39 (55%) | 21 (30%) | 13/70 (18%) | 0.5 |
Active | 31 (45%) | 49 (70%) | 23/70 (32%) | - |
Mean Voided Volume mL (SD) | 165 (93) | 209 (100) | - | 0.02 |
Mean Residual Volume mL (SD) | 31 (46) | 33 (70) | - | 0.6 |
Mean Qmax mL/sec (SD) | 16.6 (6.4) | 11.9 (5.6) | 0.01 | |
Mean Flow time sec (SD) | 17.9 (14.5) | 32.4 (20.3) | 0.03 |