The diagnostic methods of evaluating infravesical obstruction, especially in BPH, are based on symptoms, history, digital rectal examination, intravenous pyelography, ultrasonography, uroflowmetry and residual urine, etc. But these methods cannot accurately and objectively evaluate infravesical obstruction. We measured voiding cystometry with uroflowmetry and urethral pressure profile in 24 BPH patients by Dantec UD5500. We classified the degree of obstruction into obstructive, equivocal and nonobstructive types by Griffiths' obstructive nomogram and Type 0 - VI by Schaefer's nomogram after computer assisted pressure-flow analysis. Among 24 patients, obstructive type was in 12, equivocal type in 6, and nonobstructive type in 6 by Griffiths' obstructive nomogram. Based on Schaefer's nomogram, type 0 was in 4 patients, type I in 6, type III in 4, type IV in 2, type V in 4 and type VI in 4. In our analyzed urodynamic parameters, Qmax, Pdet, Pmuo, Atheo and URA had statistical significance(p<0.05). We consider Griffiths' obstructive nomogram and Schaefer's nomogram based on pressure flow plot are objective methods of accurately evaluating infravesical obstruction.
Digital Rectal Examination ; Humans ; Nomograms ; Ultrasonography ; Urodynamics ; Urography

To define the practical value of prostatic needle biopsy in patients with suspicious prostatic carcinoma we studied the analysis of the clinical records of 49 patients underwent the prostatic needle biopsy at Severance Hospital during the 5 year period from 1976 through 1980. Forty-nine patients had been biopsied; carcinoma was found in 3 of 15 patients (20 per cent) not having prostatic induration, 6 of 17 (35 per cent) with minimal or equivocal induration and 12 of 17 (71 per cent) with marked induration. The results suggest that the vast majority of the patients with prostatic carcinoma has some degree of palpable induration and that a high index of suspicion appears warranted and needle biopsyshould be performed when any prostatic induration is present on digital rectal examination.
Biopsy, Needle* ; Diagnosis* ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Humans ; Needles* ; Prostatic Neoplasms

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage following surgery is one of the most significant causes of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, prevention of anastomotic leakage is crucial for safe rectal surgery. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of Mallecot(R) insertion on the prevention of anastomotic leakage after low rectal anastomosis. METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2006, 264 rectal cancer surgeries were performed in one center and by one surgeon. Among them, 110 cases whose anastomosis was located below 6 cm from the anal verge were collected and reviewed retrospectively. We made a diverting stoma on 6 out of 20 patients with high risk of anastomotic leakage, and inserted Mallecot(R) on the remaining 14 patients transanally. Removal of Mallecot(R) was done at the 7th postoperative day after a digital rectal examination to identify the completeness of anastomosis had been performed. RESULTS: Totally, anastomotic leakage occurred in 8 of 110 patients (73%). Among the 90 patients without any preventive measures, 7 incidents of anastomotic leakage were observed; on the other hand, 1 of 14 patients with Mallecot(R) insertion suffered anastomotic leakage. In two of the patients with leakage, including 1 in the Mallecot(R) group, the leakage was resolved via percutaneous drainage; in the other 6 patients were reoperated. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of preventing an anastomotic leakage after low rectal surgery cannot be overemphasized to reduce morbidity and to improve the prognosis. In addition, Mallecot(R) insertion may be an alternative method for diverting stoma formation.
Anastomotic Leak ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Drainage ; Hand ; Humans ; Mortality ; Prognosis ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Retrospective Studies

PURPOSE: Although the height of a rectal tumor above the anal verge (tumor height) partly determines the treatment strategy, no practical standard exists for reporting this. We aimed to demonstrate the differences in tumor height according to the diagnostic modality used for its measurement. METHODS: We identified 100 patients with rectal cancers located within 15 cm of the anal verge who had recorded tumor heights measured by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), colonoscopy, and digital rectal examination (DRE). Tumor height measured by using MRI was compared with those measured by using DRE and colonoscopy to assess reporting inconsistencies. Factors associated with differences in tumor height among the modalities were also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean tumor heights were 77.8 ± 3.3, 52.9 ± 2.3, and 68.9 ± 3.1 mm when measured by using MRI, DRE, and colonoscopy, respectively (P < 0.001). Agreement among the 3 modalities in terms of tumor sublocation within the rectum was found in only 39% of the patients. In the univariate and the multivariate analyses, clinical stage showed a possible association with concordance among modalities, but age, sex, and luminal location of the tumor were not associated with differences among modalities. CONCLUSION: The heights of rectal cancer differed according to the diagnostic modality. Tumor height has implications for rectal cancer’s surgical planning and for interpreting comparative studies. Hence, a consensus is needed for measuring and reporting tumor height.
Colonoscopy ; Consensus ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Multivariate Analysis ; Phenobarbital ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Rectum

Anal diseases are very common and it is important for a medical practitioner to understand how to deal with these diseases. To establish diagnoses of specific conditions, detailed history taking, inspection, palpation including digital rectal examination, and anoscopic examination are performed. Sigmoidoscopy is also required if upper lesions are suspected. History taking should include information about bleeding, prolapse, swelling, pain, discharge, irritation, bowel habit, continence, abdominal symptoms, weight loss. Sims' position and lithotomy position are commonly used for physical examination of the anal area. In addition to careful inspection and palpation, digital rectal examination should be performed to evaluate the anal canal width and sphincter strength. Above all, digital examination is a very useful and cheap tool to find rectal cancer which commonly occurs after middle-ages. Common anal diseases such as hemorrhoids, anal fissure, perianal abscess and fistula-in-ano, pruritus anai, and rectal prolapse are reviewed.
Abscess ; Anal Canal ; Diagnosis* ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Fissure in Ano ; Hemorrhage ; Hemorrhoids ; Palpation ; Physical Examination ; Prolapse ; Pruritus ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Rectal Prolapse ; Sigmoidoscopy ; Weight Loss

We examined 990 self-referred men with one of urologic diseases over age 50 years to compare clinical usefulness of digital rectal examination(DRE), serum PSA level, and transrectal ultrasonography of the prostate(TRUS) in a screening program for prostatic cancer. Biopsy was performed in 201(20%) cases, of which 20 percent was diagnosed as prostate cancer. Sensitivity of DRE was 68%, specificity was 91%, and positive predictive value was 53%, respectively. Positive predictive values are 26% in cases with serum PSA level above 4ng/ml, 36% in cases with serum PSA above 10ng/ml and 40% for TRUS, respectively. When serum PSA below 4ng/ml and negative DRE, the positive predictive value was merely 6%. But when serum PSA above 10ng/ml and positive DRE, the positive predictive value increased to 72%. When serum PSA below 4ng/ml, negative DRE and negative TRUS, the positivepredictive value was merely 7%. However when serum PSA above 10ng/ml, positive DRE and positive TRUS, the positive predictive value was 80%. We conclude that DRE has greater diagnostic effect than the serum PSA level greater than 10ng/ml or hypoechoic area on TRUS and DRE with a serum PSA concentration is considered as an effective screening method of prostatic cancer in all urologic patients over 50 years of age. If DRE and serum PSA level are normal, there is no reason to proceed with TRUS and/or biopsy of the prostate.
Biopsy ; Digital Rectal Examination* ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening ; Prostate* ; Prostatic Neoplasms* ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography* ; Urologic Diseases

The serum PSA concentration is directly correlated with patient age and prostatic volume. Thus, rather than rely on a single reference range for men of all age group, it is more appropriate to have age-specific reference ranges. We define the cancer-free population as men with a PSA less than or equal to 4.0ng/ml and nonsuspicious digital rectal examination, and those with an abnormality in either parameter with a nonmalignant prostate biopsy. A total of 905 men was recruited for a prostate cancer detection study using serum PSA and digital rectal examination, of whom 869 fulfilled our criteria of cancer-free. The upper limits for PSA(mean +2 standard deviations) by age were 2.89ng/ml in the 40 to 49-year group, 4. 67ng/ml in the 50 to 59-year group, 5.49ng/ml in the 60 to 69-year group and 6.48ng/ml in the 70 to 79-year group. It is the purpose of our study to know that how accurate our definition of normal as evidenced by a lack of cancer in men with a normal digital rectal examination and PSA between 4.0 and the derived upper limit of normal is. The apparent accuracy of these new limits is strong in the 50 to 69-year group but it declines in the next decade. The data support further attempts at using PSA, age and digital rectal examination to establish selection criteria for prostate biopsy with adequate specificity.
Biopsy ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Humans ; Male ; Patient Selection ; Prostate ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; Reference Values* ; Sensitivity and Specificity

PURPOSE: Most urologists, to our knowledge, recommend prostatic biopsy if serum prostate specific antigen(PSA) concentrations are between 4 and 10ng/ml(gray zone), even in the abscence of abnormal digital rectal examination(DRE). But the detection of prostate cancer has not been frequent in patients with negative DRE and gray zone of serum PSA. So, we investigated the detection rate of prostate cancer to evaluate the effectiveness of biopsy, and provide the clinical data which is needed to make an appropriate guideline for management in those patients in Korea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 58 patients with negative DRE and serum PSA greater than 4ng/ml, in whom transrectal systemic biopsy was done between January 1, 1996 and July 31, 1998. Additionally we analysed 38 patients with negative DRE and serum PSA more than 4ng/ml in a Korean literature. We calculated the detection rate of prostate cancer in patients with gray zone of serum PSA and serum PSA greater than 10ng/ml, respectively. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 5 patients out of the 58 patients(8.6%), including 1 patient(3.7%) out of 27 patients with gray zone of serum PSA and 4(12.9%) out of 31 patients with serum PSA greater than 10ng/ml. Prostate cancer was detected in 4 patients out of the 38 patients in the literature(10.5%), including 1 patient(5.0%) out of 20 patients with gray zone of serum and 3 patients(16.7%) out of 18 patients with serum PSA greater than 10ng/ml. Combining the results of our current study with that of other Korean literature, total number of patients was 96, and 9(9.4%) of them proved to harbor prostate cancer, including 2 patients(4.3%) out of 47 patients with gray zone of serum PSA and 7 patients(14.3%) out of 49 patients with serum PSA greater than 10ng/ml. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of prostate cancer in Korean with negative DRE and gray zone of serum PSA is significantly lower than that in North American. Therefore it may not be effective to perform biopsy in all of those patients in Korea. Needed are Korean criteria of prostatic biopsy to detect prostate carcinoma in those patients, which can be acceptable in Korean.
Biopsy* ; Digital Rectal Examination* ; Humans ; Korea ; Prostate* ; Prostate-Specific Antigen* ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; Retrospective Studies

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the extended-core (eight- or ten-core) biopsy incorporating far lateral peripheral zone can increase the rate of prostate cancer detection compared to traditional sextant biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the results of prostate needle biopsies of 770 men with elevated serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) ranging from 4.1 to 20ng/ml. Ten-core, eight-core, and sextant biopsies were performed in 584, 111, and 75 men, respectively. There were no significant differences in age, mean level of serum PSA, prostate volume, and PSA density between extended biopsy group and sextant biopsy group. The cancer detection rate was compared between the two groups according to the range of PSA and finding of digital rectal examination (DRE). RESULTS: Overall cancer detection rate was 12.0% in sextant biopsy group and 18.3% in extended-core biopsy group (p>0.05). In men with abnormal DRE, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the cancer detection rate (35.0% in sextant biopsy group versus 30.2% in extended biopsy group). However, significantly higher cancer detection rate was noted in extended-core biopsy group with normal findings of DRE (3.6% versus 12.7%). No significant difference of the cancer detection rate was observed between eight-core and ten-core biopsy groups. CONCLUSIONS: In men with an elevated PSA and a normal DRE, extended- core biopsy appears to enhance cancer detection compared to the traditional sextant biopsy, whereas sextant biopsy may be sufficient to detect the cancer in men with abnormal findings of DRE.
Biopsy* ; Biopsy, Needle ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Humans ; Male ; Prostate* ; Prostate-Specific Antigen ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; Retrospective Studies

PURPOSE: It has been well known that 70-80% of men with prostatism actually manifest bladder outlet obstruction(BOO) and the rest have detrusor underactivity(DU) or other abnormalities. Accordingly, the treatment of BPH by the results of symptom score, or uroflow may be partly incorrect. It is also well known that the pressure-flow study is the gold-standard to define the presence and degree of BOO. Therefore, we investigated pressure-flow study to identify non-obstructed, underactive detrusor function among the patients presented with prostatism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 96 patients older than 50 years (mean 69.6+/-5.8) with prostatism. All patients were assessed by history taking, symptom score, digital rectal examination, uroflowmetry and pressure-flow study. Patients were divided into irritative and obstructive symptom groups according to their chief complaints. Urodynamic parameters between those two groups were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Of the total 96 patients, detrusor instability was noted in 45(47%) at the filling cystometry. Of the 53 patients presented with irritative symptoms, 33 showed detrusor instability(62%); Of the 43 patients mainly presented with obstructive symptoms, only 12(28%) showed detrusor instability. Statistically significant correlation was found between irritative symptoms and detrusor instability as well as obstructed symptoms and BOO. In the total patients, BOO was found in 49(51%) and detrusor underactivity(DU) was found in 36(37%) with equivocal cases in 11(12%). Of the 43 patients mainly presented with obstructive symptoms, BOO and DU was found in 23(53%) and 13(30%) respectively. Of the 53 patients presented with irritative symptoms, BOO and DU was found in 26(49%) and 23(43%) respectively. There were no significant differences between irritative and obstructive symptom group as well as BOO and DU group in the clinical parameters as determined by symptom score, prostate size, and uroflowmetry. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, significant proportion(37%) of the whole patient population was classified as detrusor underactivity as diagnosed by urodynamics to which treatment for BPH may not be as effective as for those manifested with BOO. It is suggested that pressure-flow study is to be considered to patients with prostatism who didn`t show any symptomatic improvement despite the treatment for BPH.
Digital Rectal Examination ; Humans ; Incidence* ; Male ; Prostate ; Prostatic Hyperplasia ; Prostatism* ; Urinary Bladder ; Urodynamics