Urodynamic evaluation of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and small prostate volume

Introduction: The relevance of prostate size in the pathophysiology of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is controversial. We evaluated the urodynamic findings in patients with LUTS and small prostate volumes. Materials and Methods: 84 patients aged >= 50 years with LUTS and prostates < 40 ml were evaluated. All had an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >= 8. Average age was 62.0 +/- 8.1 years. We evaluated the impact of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and detrusor overactivity (DO) on the voiding symptoms and urodynamic findings. Results: Mean prostate volume was 29.2 +/- 7.2 ml and mean IPSS was 13.5 +/- 4.6. BOO was the main finding, affecting 42 (50.0%) patients, followed by detrusor underactivity (DU) in 41 (48.8%) and DO in 28 (33.3%) patients. Patients without BOO were significantly older than the obstructed (64.0 +/- 8.8 and 60.1 +/- 6.9 years, respectively; p = 0.026) and had an increased prevalence of DU (76.2 and 21.4%, respectively; p < 0.001). Comparison of patients with and without DO showed reduced bladder capacity and compliance in the DO group (p < 0.001). No other comparisons were significant. Conclusion: Half of the patients with LUTS and small prostates are not obstructed and may have DO or decreased detrusor contractility as the basis for their voiding symptoms. Our results emphasize the value of urodynamics in this population, especially when invasive treatments are being considered. Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Urodynamic evaluation in diabetic patients with prostate enlargement and lower urinary tract symptoms

Introduction: Lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS) are common in men over 50 years of age due to prostate enlargement. Diabetes mellitus is also more prevalent in this group. LUTS may result from bladder outlet obstruction ( BOO) secondary to prostate enlargement or bladder dysfunction secondary to diabetes or even from a combination of both. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of BOO and other urodynamic abnormalities in diabetic patients with LUTS and enlarged prostate. A secondary objective was to assess the predictive value of non-invasive tests for BOO diagnosis in this group of patients. Patients and Methods: 50 consecutive diabetic patients with enlarged prostate and LUTS were evaluated by the International Prostate Symptom Score ( IPSS), ultra sonography and urodynamics. BOO diagnosis was based on pressure/ flow measurements according to the International Continence Society`s standards. Results: Of the 50 patients in the study, 23 ( 46%) had BOO. There was no correlation between the IPSS, uroflowmetry, post- voiding residual urine or prostate volume and the presence of BOO ( p > 0.05). Conclusions: There is a relatively low prevalence of BOO in diabetic patients with prostate enlargement and LUTS. Non- invasive tests did not allow the identification of these subjects. Only urodynamic evaluation is able to determine symptom etiology. Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Is the ultrasound-estimated bladder weight a reliable method for evaluating bladder outlet obstruction?

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the correlation between ultrasound-estimated bladder weight (UEBW) in patients with different degrees of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). METHODS We evaluated 50 consecutive non-neurogenic male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) referred to urodynamic study (UDS). All patients self-answered the International Prostate Score Symptoms (IPSS) questionnaire. After the UDS, the bladder was filled with 150 mL to determine UEBW. Patients with a bladder capacity under 150 mL, a previous history of prostate surgery or pelvic irradiation, an IPSS score <8, a bladder stone or urinary tract infection were excluded. After a pressure-flow study, the Schafer linear passive urethral resistance relation nomogram was plotted to determine the grade of obstruction: Grades I-II/VI were defined as mild obstruction, Grades III-IV/VI as moderate obstruction, and Grades V-VI/VI as severe obstruction. RESULTS The UEBW was 51.7 +/- 26.9, 54.1 +/- 30.0 and 54.8 +/- 28.2 in patients with mild, moderate and severe BOO, respectively (P = 0.130). The UEBW allowed us to define four groups: (i) UEBW < 35 g; (ii) 35 g <= UEBW < 50 g; (iii) 50 g <= UEBW < 70 g; and (4) UEBW >= 70 g. We did not find any differences in age, prostate weight, IPSS, PVR, cystometric bladder capacity, presence of detrusor overactive and degree of obstruction in the aforementioned groups. CONCLUSION Despite the fact that some studies have emphasized the value of UEBW as an efficient non-invasive method for evaluating lower urinary tract obstruction, our study suggests that UEBW does not present any individual correlation with LUTS or objective measurements of BOO.