Indian Journal of Urology Users online:4300  
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 36-41

Diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction can we do away with pressureflow studies?

Christian Fellowship Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, and CMC, Vellore, India

Correspondence Address:
Abraham Vinod Peedikayil
Division of Urology, Christian Fellowship Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Objective: To compare pressure-flow study on one hand with BWT, prostate volume, urine flow rate PVR and IPSS index in the other arm for diagnosis of BOO. Materials and methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out in 48 men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). International prostate symptom score was completed by the patient who then underwent free urine flow study. Pressure-Flow study was performed as per recommendations of International continence Society. Abrams-Griffiths nomogram and number were used to diagnose BOO. Patients with diabetes, neurovesical dysfunction, acute urinary retention, prior pelvic surgery and known prostate cancer were excluded. Suprapubic ultrasonography was performed independently by a consultant radiologist, who was blinded to findings of Pressure-Flow study. Prevoid bladder volume, postvoid residue (PVR), prostate volume and bladder wall thickness (BWT) were noted. Results: Based on objective evidence from Pressure-Flow study, 35 patients were obstructed, 13 were not. Multivariate analysis was performed using Backward Stepwise Logistic Regression Model. Bladder wall thickness, prostate volume and urine flow rate had statistically significant relationship with BOO. Their coefficients of correlation were +0.794, +0.084 and 0.393 respectively. Bladder outlet obstruction could be defined by using a mathematical formula as detailed in the text (Positive Predictive Value 96.97%). Post-void residue and IPSS index were statistically insignificant. Conclusion: In a select group of patients presenting with LUTS, it should be possible to diagnose BOO without the use of Pressure-Flow study.

[FULL TEXT] [PDF Not available]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal