• RI - Unifesp
    • Documentos
    • Tutoriais
    • Perguntas frequentes
    • Atendimento
    • Equipe
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
  • Sobre
    • RI Unifesp
    • Documentos
    • Tutoriais
    • Perguntas frequentes
    • Atendimento
    • Equipe
  • English 
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • English
    • español
  • Login
View Item 
  •   DSpace Home
  • Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM)
  • EPM - Artigos
  • View Item
  •   DSpace Home
  • Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM)
  • EPM - Artigos
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

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

Thumbnail
Date
2011-09-01
Author
Almeida, Fernando G. [UNIFESP]
Freitas, Danielo Garcia de [UNIFESP]
Bruschini, Homero [UNIFESP]
Type
Artigo
ISSN
1464-4096
Is part of
Bju International
DOI
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09881.x
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
OBJECTIVETo evaluate the correlation between ultrasound-estimated bladder weight (UEBW) in patients with different degrees of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO).METHODSWe 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.RESULTSThe 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.CONCLUSIONDespite 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.
Citation
Bju International. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, v. 108, n. 6, p. 864-867, 2011.
Keywords
ultrasound-estimated bladder weight
prostate
BOO
BPH
LUTS
Sponsorship
UNIFESP-EPM
URI
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/33980
Collections
  • EPM - Artigos [17701]

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us
Theme by 
Atmire NV
 

 

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us
Theme by 
Atmire NV