Ultrasonic measurement of intravesical prostatic protrusion in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients
- VernacularTitle:良性前列腺增生患者膀胱内前列腺突人程度的超声测定
- Author:
Benkang SHI
;
Keqin ZHANG
;
Dongqing ZHANG
;
Haixin WANG
;
Haifeng WANG
;
Yongzhi LI
;
Zhishun XU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Benign prostatic hyperplasia;
Transabdominal ultrasound;
Bladder outlet obstruction;
Intravesical prostatic protrusion
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2008;(11):774-777
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To study a noninvasive method in evaluating the bladder outlet obstruc-tion (BOO) and bladder function in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) based on the transabdominal ultrasonic measurement of intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP). Methods The da-ta of 206 first visit BPH patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were retrospectively re-viewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the degree of IPP: the research group with IPP greater than 10 mm(n=78) and control group with IPP 10 mm or less(n=128). Clinical data and uro-dynamic findings of the 2 groups were analyzed to find the clinical significance of IPP. Resells In-creased prostate volume(73.7±35.9 ml vs 62.8±36.5 ml), serum prostate specific antigen(1.81± 0.67 ng/ml vs 1. 64±0.36 ng/ml), post-voiding residual urine volume (PVR)(290.2±217.2 ml vs 228.2±167.9 ml), incidence of acute urine retention(33.3% vs 18.0%)and bladder trabeculation (23.1% vs 11.7%)had signicant differences between the 2 groups (P<0.05). Positive correlation was found between IPP and prostate volume as well as PVR (r=0.401 and 0.342, respectively). In the urodynamic study, significantly lower peak flow rate (Qmax) (7.6±4.1 ml/s vs 9.1±3.6 ml/s), higher incidence of detrusor overactivity (82.1% vs 17.2%) and low bladder compliance (35.9% vs 12.5%)were found in research group (P<0.01). In addition, maximum detrusor pressure(109.8± 84.9 cm H2O vs 84.9±44.1 cm H2O) and BOO index (BOOI) (75.2±27.1 vs 65.9±34.6) were significantly higher in the research group (p<0.05). The correlation study showed that r between IPP and Qmax, Pdet. max and BOOI was-0.284, 0.252 and 0.456, respectively. The incidence of acute urinary intention recurrence was higher in research group than in control group (64.3% vs 23.5%) (P<0.05). Conclusions IPP is a useful predictor in evaluating BOO and detrusor function. BOO and impaired detrusor function in obvious IPP patients are more severe. The obvious IPP pa-tients, especially those presenting with acute urine retention, may benefit more from early surgical in-tervention.
