Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot study

Objective: We assessed the efficacy of voiding efficiency (VE) to distinguish between underactive bladder (UB) and bladder outlet obstruction (BO) without using pressure flow studies (PFS). Materials and methods: in male patients, uroflowmetry and post-void residual (PVR) urine data and subsequent...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mehmet Yoldas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PAGEPress Publications 2022-03-01
Series:Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/10372
_version_ 1818314909331488768
author Mehmet Yoldas
author_facet Mehmet Yoldas
author_sort Mehmet Yoldas
collection DOAJ
description Objective: We assessed the efficacy of voiding efficiency (VE) to distinguish between underactive bladder (UB) and bladder outlet obstruction (BO) without using pressure flow studies (PFS). Materials and methods: in male patients, uroflowmetry and post-void residual (PVR) urine data and subsequent pressure flow studies (PFS) data were examined retrospectively. Bladder outlet obstruction index (BOI) and bladder contractility index (BCI) were calculated from patients' PFS values. Patients with BCI < 100 and BOI < 40 were grouped as UB group and patients with BCI > 100 and BOI > 40 were grouped as BOO group. VE was computed as a percentage of volume voided compared to the pre-void bladder volume. Results: In total we examined 93 patients, 44 in UB and 49 in BO group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in relation to Qmax value (p = 0.38). However, total voiding time, time to reach the maximum urinary flow rate and voided volume showed statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). Average VE was 63.6 + 2.43% and 46.2 + 2.63%) for UB and BO groups respectively and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). UB can be diagnosed with at least 95% sensitivity and 88% specificity in men over age 80. Conclusions: Non-invasive uroflowmetry and VE measurements were able to differentiate between UB and BOO patients, presenting with identical clinic features, but different findings of PFS.
first_indexed 2024-12-13T08:57:08Z
format Article
id doaj.art-fdd61f80425046eca5bf4695a78c237e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1124-3562
2282-4197
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-13T08:57:08Z
publishDate 2022-03-01
publisher PAGEPress Publications
record_format Article
series Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
spelling doaj.art-fdd61f80425046eca5bf4695a78c237e2022-12-21T23:53:16ZengPAGEPress PublicationsArchivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia1124-35622282-41972022-03-0194110.4081/aiua.2022.1.51Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot studyMehmet Yoldas0Tepecik Training and Research Hospital Urology Clinic, Izmir Objective: We assessed the efficacy of voiding efficiency (VE) to distinguish between underactive bladder (UB) and bladder outlet obstruction (BO) without using pressure flow studies (PFS). Materials and methods: in male patients, uroflowmetry and post-void residual (PVR) urine data and subsequent pressure flow studies (PFS) data were examined retrospectively. Bladder outlet obstruction index (BOI) and bladder contractility index (BCI) were calculated from patients' PFS values. Patients with BCI < 100 and BOI < 40 were grouped as UB group and patients with BCI > 100 and BOI > 40 were grouped as BOO group. VE was computed as a percentage of volume voided compared to the pre-void bladder volume. Results: In total we examined 93 patients, 44 in UB and 49 in BO group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in relation to Qmax value (p = 0.38). However, total voiding time, time to reach the maximum urinary flow rate and voided volume showed statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). Average VE was 63.6 + 2.43% and 46.2 + 2.63%) for UB and BO groups respectively and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). UB can be diagnosed with at least 95% sensitivity and 88% specificity in men over age 80. Conclusions: Non-invasive uroflowmetry and VE measurements were able to differentiate between UB and BOO patients, presenting with identical clinic features, but different findings of PFS. https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/10372bladder outlet obstrictionvoiding efficiencyurodinamyUnderactive bladder
spellingShingle Mehmet Yoldas
Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot study
Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
bladder outlet obstriction
voiding efficiency
urodinamy
Underactive bladder
title Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot study
title_full Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot study
title_fullStr Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot study
title_full_unstemmed Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot study
title_short Non-invasive diagnosis of under active bladder: A pilot study
title_sort non invasive diagnosis of under active bladder a pilot study
topic bladder outlet obstriction
voiding efficiency
urodinamy
Underactive bladder
url https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/10372
work_keys_str_mv AT mehmetyoldas noninvasivediagnosisofunderactivebladderapilotstudy