Aynur SOLAK, Hakan ÖZTÜRK, Neslin ŞAHİN, Musa SARAÇOĞLU, Sena KALAYCIOĞLU, Berhan GENÇ

Mesane Çıkışı Obstrüksiyonunun Non-İnvaziv Tanısında İnravazikal Prostatik Protrüzyonun Önemi: Semptomlar ve Üroflowmetrik Sonuçlarla Koralasyon

Amaç: Alt üriner sistem yakınmaları (AÜSY) olan hastalarda transabdominal ultrasonografi (US) kullanılarak ölçülen intravezikal prostatik protrüzyon ile (İPP), hastanın yakınmaları ve üroflowmetrik sonuçları arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Materyal ve Metot: AÜSY olan 102 hastaya uluslararası prostatik semptom skorlamasına (international prostatic symptom scoring: IPSS) ait sorular yöneltilip yanıtları kaydedilmiştir. Abdominal US incelemede İPP ölçümleri alınmıştır. Ardından dolu mesane hacmi, post-voiding rezidüel idrar (PVR) miktarı ölçülmüştür. IPSS değerlerine göre olgular düşük, orta ve şiddetli semptomlara sahip 3 grupta sınıflandırılmıştır. Hastaların PSA değerleri, maksimum (MİAH) ve ortalama idrar akım hızlarını (OİAH) içeren üro-flowmetri sonuçları ve yaşları kaydedilmiştir. SPSS 19.0 kullanılarak, değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler non-parametrik testlerle analiz edilmiş, p

(Importance of intravesical prostatic protrusion in the noninvasive diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction: Correlation with symptoms and uroflowmetry results)

Background: To investigate the relationship among intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) measured using transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and symptoms and results of uroflowmetry in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Material and Methods: Questions including international prostate scoring system (IPSS) asked to patients presenting with LUTS and answers were recorded. TAUSs were performed by radiologists. IPP measurements were done and then full-filled bladder volume (BV) and post residual urine volume (PRUV) measurements were performed. The patients were classified as with low, medium and high obstructive symptoms according to their IPSS values. Their PSA values, peak and medium urinary flow rate (PUFR, MUFR) values were recorded. Variables were compared with non-parametric tests using SPSS 19.0. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference. Results: There was no significant correlation between patients age, full-filled BV and other variables. PRUV, volume of prostatic gland, PSA values and IPP measurements were strongly correlated to each other. There were significant negative correlation between PUFR and MUFR and other variables. Most significant correlation was seen between IPP and IPSS (r: 0.938, p: 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with LUTS, the IPP assessed by TAUS is a better, easy to apply, useful and more reliable predictor of bladder outlet obstruction than the other variables assessed.

PDF

___

1. Poulsen AL, Schou J, Puggaard L, Torp-Pedersen S, Nordling J. Prostatic enlargement, symptomatology and pressure/flow evaluation: interrelations in patients with symptomatic BPH. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1994;157(suppl):67-73.
2. OLeary MP. Tamsulosin: current clinical experience. Urology 2001; 58:428.
3. Rosier PF, de Wildt MJ, Wijkstra H, Debruyne FF, de la Rosette JJ. Clinical diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in patients with benign prostatic enlargement and lower urinary tract symptoms: development and urodynamic validation of a clinical prostate score for the objective diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction. J Urol 1996;155:1649-54.
4. el Din KE, Kiemeney LA, de Wildt MJ, Rosier PF, Debruyne FM, de la Rosette JJ. The correlation between bladder outlet obstruction and lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the international prostate symptom score. J Urol 1996;156:1020-5
5. Ayhan D. Benign prostat hiperplazisinde ultrason takibinin rolü. Üroonkoloji Bülteni 2010;4:8-14
6. Lieber M, Jacobson DJ, Mc Gee ME, Sauver JL, Gwen C, Jacobson SC. Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion in Men in Olmsted Country, Minnesota. J Urol 2009;182:281924.
7. Reis LO, Barreiro GC, Baracat J, Prudente A, DAncona CA. Intravesical protrusion of the prostate as a predictive method of bladder outlet obstruction. International Braz J Urol Vol 2008;34:627-37.
8. Belal M, Abrams P. Noninvasive methods of diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in men. Part 1: Nonurodynamic approach. J Urol 2006; 176:22-8.
9. Meyhoff HH, Ingemann L, Nordling J, Hald T. Accuracy in preoperative estimation of prostatic size. A comparative evaluation of rectal palpation, intravenous pyelography, urethral closure pressure profile recording and cystourethroscopy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1981;15:45-51.
10. Manieri C, Carter SS, Romano G, Trucchi A, Valenti M, Tubaro A. The diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in men by ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness. J Urol 1998;159:761-5.
11. Rosier PF, de la Rosette JJ. Is there a correlation between prostate size and bladder-outlet obstruction? World J Urol 1995;13:9-13.
12. Doo CK, Uh HS. Anatomic configuration of prostate obtained by noninvasive ultrasonography can predict clinical voiding parameters for determining BOO in men with LUTS. Urology 2009;73:232-6.
13. Yang S, Hong W S, Lee J M, et al. Is intravesical prostatic protrusion associated with predominent and intractable storage symptoms in BPH patients with over 30 g of prostate volume? Urology 2012;26:75-9.
14. Shapiro E, Becich MJ, Hartanto V, Lepor H. The relative proportion of stromal and epithelial hyperplasia is related to the development of symptomatic benign prostate hyperplasia. J Urol 1992;147:1293-7.
15. Caine M. The present role of alpha-adrenergic blockers in the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy. J Urol 1986;136:1-4.
16. Shapiro E, Hartanto V, Lepor H. The response to alpha blockade in benign prostatic hyperplasia is related to the percent area density of prostate smooth muscle. Prostate 1992;21:297-307.
17. Neal DE, Ramsden PD, Sharples L, et al. Outcome of elective prostatectomy. BMJ 1989;299:762-7.
18. Grossfeld GD, Coakley FV. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: clinical overview and value of diagnostic imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38: 31-47.
19. Kojima M, Naya Y, Inoue W, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia as a function of age, volume and ultrasonic appearance of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157: 2160-5.
20. Managadze M, Tchanturaia Z. Trabeculation of urinary bladder by ultrasound in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Georgian Med News 2006;137:16-8.
21. Kanao K, Kikuchi E, Nakashima J, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonography in evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Urol 2004;11:1087-91.
22. Keqin Z, Zhishun X, Jing Z, Haixin W, Dongqing Z, Benkang S. Clinical significance of: Intravesical prostatic protrusion in patients with benign prostatic enlargement. Adult Urology 2007;70:1097-1099.
23. Lee SW, Cho JM, Kang JY, Yoo TK. Clinical and urodynamic significance of morphological differences in intravesical prostatic protrusion. Korean J Urol 2010;51:694-9.
24. Chia SJ, Heng CT, Chan SP, Foo KT. Correlation of intravesical prostatic protrusion with bladder outlet obstruction. BJU Int 2003;91:371-4.
25. Franco G, De Nunzio C, Leonardo C, et al. Ultrasound assessment of intravesical prostatic protrusion and detrusor wall thickness--new standards for noninvasive bladder outlet obstruction diagnosis? J Urol 2010; 183:2270-4.
26. Mariappan P, Brown DJ, McNeill AS. Intravesical prostatic protrusion is better than prostate volume in predicting the outcome of trial without catheter in white men presenting with acute urinary retention: a prospective clinical study. J Urol 2007;178:573-7.
27. Nose H, Foo KT, Lim KB, Yokoyama T, Ozawa H, Kumon H. Accuracy of two noninvasive methods of diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction using ultrasonography: intravesical prostatic protrusion and velocityflow video urodynamics. Urology 2005;65:493-7.