Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion Predicts the Outcome of a Trial Without Catheter Following Acute Urine Retention

2003; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 170; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/01.ju.0000095474.86981.00

1527-3792

Yeh Hong Tan, Keong Tatt Foo,

Pelvic floor disorders treatments

No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Dec 2003Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion Predicts the Outcome of a Trial Without Catheter Following Acute Urine Retention YEH HONG TAN and KEONG TATT FOO YEH HONG TANYEH HONG TAN and KEONG TATT FOOKEONG TATT FOO View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000095474.86981.00AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We prospectively evaluated a simple, noninvasive method to predict the outcome of a voiding trial following acute urine retention (ARU) based on intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) using transabdominal ultrasound. Materials and Methods: Males older than 50 years presenting with an initial episode of ARU were included in the study. Patients with prostatic cancer, urinary tract infection, bilateral hydronephrosis or neurological disease were excluded. The duration of catheterization, residual urine volume, serum prostate specific antigen and prostate volume were recorded. The patient bladder was filled with 200 ml normal saline via a catheter in situ. IPP was measured in the mid sagittal section using transabdominal ultrasound. The degree of protrusion was classified as grades 1—5 mm or less, 2—greater than 5 to 10 mm and 3—greater than 10 mm. Uroflowmetry and post-void residual urine were recorded after catheter removal. The voiding trial was judged to be unsuccessful if the patient failed to reestablish satisfactory micturition, with post-void residual urine greater than 100 ml and maximum urine flow less than 10 ml per second. Results: A total of 100 patients were included in the study. The failure rate of the voiding trial based on grades 1 to 3 IPP were 36% (13 of 36 cases), 58% (11 of 19) and 67% (30 of 45). This rate was significant (chi-square test for trend 0.007). Conclusions: IPP is a useful predictor for evaluating the success of a voiding trial following ARU. Patients with a grade 1 prostate may benefit from a trial without a catheter. However, patients with a grade 3 prostate are less likely to do so and would require a more definitive surgical procedure. References 1 : The outcome of trial off catheter after acute retention of urine. Ann Acad Med Singapore1999; 28: 516. Google Scholar 2 : Current assessment and proposed staging of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Ann Acad Med Singapore1995; 24: 648. Google Scholar 3 : Is staging of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) feasible?. Ann Acad Med Singapore1999; 28: 800. Google Scholar 4 : Effects of bladder volume on transabdominal ultrasound measurements of intravesical prostatic protrusion and volume. Int J Urol2002; 9: 225. Google Scholar 5 : Correlation of intravesical prostatic protrusion with bladder outlet obstruction. BJU Int2003; 91: 371. Google Scholar 6 : Emergency situations: acute retention of urine. Br J Hosp Med1978; 19: 109. Google Scholar 7 : Acute urinary retention—a urodynamic assessment. Br J Urol1984; 56: 468. Google Scholar 8 : Acute retention of urine: is trial without catheter justified?. J R Coll Surg Edinb1990; 35: 225. Google Scholar 9 : A prospective study of conservatively managed acute urinary retention: prostate size matters. BJU Int2000; 86: 816. Google Scholar 10 : Symptoms and signs predictive of the voiding pattern after acute urinary retention in men. Scand J Urol Nephrol1987; 21: 23. Google Scholar 11 : Urodynamic assessment of patients with acute urinary retention: is treatment failure after prostatectomy predictable?. J Urol1997; 158: 1829. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Trial without catheter following acute retention of urine. Br J Urol1989; 63: 180. Google Scholar From the Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore© 2003 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byKaplan S (2018) Re: Predictors of Successful Trial without Catheter following Acute Urinary Retention in Benign Prostatic Enlargement: A Single Centre, Multivariate AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 199, NO. 6, (1372-1372), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018.Kaplan S (2013) Re: Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion Can Be a Predicting Factor for the Treatment Outcome in Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Obstruction Treated with TamsulosinJournal of Urology, VOL. 191, NO. 1, (157-158), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2014.Han D, Lee H, Sung H, Lee H, Lee Y and Lee K (2011) The Diagnostic Efficacy of 3-Dimensional Ultrasound Estimated Bladder Weight Corrected for Body Surface Area as an Alternative Nonurodynamic Parameter of Bladder Outlet ObstructionJournal of Urology, VOL. 185, NO. 3, (964-969), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2011.Franco G, De Nunzio C, Leonardo C, Tubaro A, Ciccariello M, De Dominicis C, Miano L and Laurenti C (2010) Ultrasound Assessment of Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion and Detrusor Wall Thickness—New Standards for Noninvasive Bladder Outlet Obstruction Diagnosis?Journal of Urology, VOL. 183, NO. 6, (2270-2274), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2010.Lieber M, Jacobson D, McGree M, St. Sauver J, Girman C and Jacobsen S (2009) Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion in Men in Olmsted County, MinnesotaJournal of Urology, VOL. 182, NO. 6, (2819-2824), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2009.Mariappan P, Brown D and McNeill A (2007) Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion is Better Than Prostate Volume in Predicting the Outcome of Trial Without Catheter in White Men Presenting With Acute Urinary Retention: A Prospective Clinical StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 178, NO. 2, (573-577), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007.Belal M and Abrams P (2018) Noninvasive Methods of Diagnosing Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Men. Part 1: Nonurodynamic ApproachJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 1, (22-28), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2006. Volume 170Issue 6December 2003Page: 2339-2341 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2003 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsurinationprostatic hyperplasiaultrasonographyprostatecatheterizationMetricsAuthor Information YEH HONG TAN More articles by this author KEONG TATT FOO More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...