Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） ...Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. In this study, a total of 50 men with BPH （age： 58±12.5 years） and 50 controls （age： 59±13.0 years） were included. A pressure-flow study was used to determine the presence of BOO according to the recommendations of Incontinence Control Society （ICS）. The results showed that the UFA and Qmax in BPH group were much lower than those in the control group [（2.05±0.85） vs. （4.60±1.25） mL/s2 and （8.50±1.05） vs. （13.00±3.35） mL/s] （P〈0.001）. Accol;ding to the criteria （UFA〈2.05 mL/s2, Qmax〈10 mL/s）, the sensitivity and specificity of UFA vs. Qmax in diagnosing BOO were 88%, 75% vs. 81%, 63%. UFA vs. Omax, when compared with the results of P-Q chart （the kappa values in corresponding analysis）, was 0.55 vs. 0.35. The pros- tate volume, post void residual and detrusor pressure at Qmax between the two groups were 28.6±9.8 vs. 24.2±7.6 mL, 60.4±1.4 vs. 21.3±2.5 mL and 56.6±8.3 vs. 21.7±6.1 cmHzO, respectively （P〈0.05）. It was concluded that the UFA is a useful urodynamic parameter, and is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH.展开更多
文摘Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. In this study, a total of 50 men with BPH （age： 58±12.5 years） and 50 controls （age： 59±13.0 years） were included. A pressure-flow study was used to determine the presence of BOO according to the recommendations of Incontinence Control Society （ICS）. The results showed that the UFA and Qmax in BPH group were much lower than those in the control group [（2.05±0.85） vs. （4.60±1.25） mL/s2 and （8.50±1.05） vs. （13.00±3.35） mL/s] （P〈0.001）. Accol;ding to the criteria （UFA〈2.05 mL/s2, Qmax〈10 mL/s）, the sensitivity and specificity of UFA vs. Qmax in diagnosing BOO were 88%, 75% vs. 81%, 63%. UFA vs. Omax, when compared with the results of P-Q chart （the kappa values in corresponding analysis）, was 0.55 vs. 0.35. The pros- tate volume, post void residual and detrusor pressure at Qmax between the two groups were 28.6±9.8 vs. 24.2±7.6 mL, 60.4±1.4 vs. 21.3±2.5 mL and 56.6±8.3 vs. 21.7±6.1 cmHzO, respectively （P〈0.05）. It was concluded that the UFA is a useful urodynamic parameter, and is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH.
