Pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral methods
- PMID: 16855778
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-7262.2006.00208.x
Pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral methods
Abstract
Aim: To compare the use of the suprapubic puncture method versus the transurethral method in pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Methods: Twenty-three men with benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent both suprapubic and transurethral pressure-flow studies during a single session. Standard pressure-flow variables were recorded in all patients with both methods, enabling calculation of obstruction using commonly used grading systems, such as the urethral resistance algorithm, the Abrams-Griffith (AG) number and the Schaer linear nomogram.
Results: There were statistically significant differences between the methods in the mean values of maximum flow rate (P < 0.05), detrusor pressure at the maximum flow (P < 0.01), urethral resistance algorithm (P < 0.01), AG number (P < 0.01) and maximum cystic capacity (P < 0.01). Of the men in the study, 10 (43.5%) remained in the same Schaer class with both methods and 18 (78.3%) in the same AG number area. Using the transurethral method, 12 (52.2%) men increased their Schaer class by one and 1 (4.3%) by two. There were also differences between the suprapubic and transurethral methods using the AG number: 4 (17.4%) men moved from a classification of equivocal to obstructed and 1 (4.3%) from unobstructed to equivocal.
Conclusion: The differences between the techniques for measuring intravesical pressure alter the grading of obstruction determined by several of the commonly used classifications. An 8 F transurethral catheter significantly increases the likelihood of a diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction when compared with the suprapubic method.
Similar articles
-
Pressure-flow studies in the diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction: a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral techniques.Br J Urol. 1997 May;79(5):693-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00143.x. Br J Urol. 1997. PMID: 9158503
-
[Effects of transurethral catheterization on uroflow rate in the pressure-flow study of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia].Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2007 Aug;13(8):710-2. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2007. PMID: 17918710 Chinese.
-
[Suprapubic puncture: preferable to transurethral catheterization for pressure-flow determination in BPH patients].Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008 Nov;14(11):973-6. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008. PMID: 19102495 Chinese.
-
Noninvasive techniques for the measurement of isovolumetric bladder pressure.J Urol. 2004 Jan;171(1):12-9. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000102685.44036.b9. J Urol. 2004. PMID: 14665833 Review.
-
[Contribution of pressure-flow relationship studies in the evaluation of benign hypertrophy of the prostate].Prog Urol. 1999 Feb;9(1):151-5. Prog Urol. 1999. PMID: 10212970 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Invasive urodynamic studies for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with voiding dysfunction.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 28;2015(4):CD011179. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011179.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 25918922 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical