Indian Journal of Urology
UROSCAN
Year
: 2010  |  Volume : 26  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 319--320

Bladder wall thickness for the assessment of voiding dysfunction


Abhishek Jain, SN Sankhwar, Apul Goel 
 Department of Urology, King George Medical University, Lucknow 226003, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Apul Goel
Department of Urology, King George Medical University, Lucknow 226003, Uttar Pradesh
India




How to cite this article:
Jain A, Sankhwar S N, Goel A. Bladder wall thickness for the assessment of voiding dysfunction.Indian J Urol 2010;26:319-320


How to cite this URL:
Jain A, Sankhwar S N, Goel A. Bladder wall thickness for the assessment of voiding dysfunction. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2010 [cited 2022 Jan 25 ];26:319-320
Available from: https://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2010/26/2/319/65420


Full Text

 Summary



In this study, authors have used transabdominal ultrasound to correlate bladder wall thickness (BWT) with bladder outlet obstruction and other non-neurogenic voiding dysfunction, as a useful noninvasive diagnostic parameter for bladder outlet obstruction. One-eighty patients (73 males, 107 females) of non-neurogenic voiding dysfunction were included in this study prospectively. All patients underwent uroflowmetry, medium fill cystometry, pressure flow study, and multichannel video urodynamics. Transabdominal ultrasonography was performed during urodynamics study by a 5.2 MHz convex transducer and a 10.5 MHz linear transducer, at 200 ml bladder volume. Two BWTs were measured 1 cm apart in sagittal plane just above pubic symphysis to measure wall thickness of anterior bladder wall. The measurements were then averaged. For statistical analysis authors used ANOVA and student t test, and P et al.1996 first reported that a BWT of more than 5 mm was the best cut-off point to diagnose BOO, since 63.3% of patients with BWT 5 mm were obstructed. [1]

Kessler et al. 2006 reported that BWT ≥2.9 mm is the best cut-off point with a 100% positive predictive point and 54% negative predictive point, 100% specificity, and 43% sensitivity. [2] Recently Oelke et al. 2007 chose a cut-off of 2 mm and 89% accuracy for diagnosing BOO. [3]

Contrary to above evidence, the authors in this present study did not found any statistically significant difference between obstructed and nonobstructed BWT. Nonsignificant difference of BWT in this study may be due to the patient duration of symptoms that were not studied, heterogeneous patients group, and gender bias.

Thus, to establish BWT as a useful predictor of BOO further studies with a consensus over BWT are required.

References

1Manieri 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.
2Kessler TM, Gerber R Burkhard FC, Studer UE, Danuser H. Ultrasound assessment of detrusor thickness in men: Can it predict bladder outlet obstruction and replace pressure flow study? J Urol 2006;175:2170-3.
3Oelke M, Hofne k, Jonas U, de la Rosette J, Ubbink D, Wijkstra H. Diagnostic accuracy of non invasive tests to evaluate bladder outlet obstruction in men: Detrusor wall thickness, Uroflowmetry, post void residual urine and prostate volume. Eur Urol 2007;52:827-34.