The value of the urine flow acceleration when uroflowmetry in the diagnostics of bladder outlet obstruction with benign prostatic hyperplasia patients

Authors

  • T.A. Kvyatkovskaya SI “Dnipropetrovsk medical academy MOH of Ukraine”, Ukraine
  • Ye.A. Kvyatkovsky MI “Dnipropetrovsk hospital № 9”, Ukraine
  • A.Ye. Kvyatkovsky MI “Dnipropetrovsk hospital № 9”, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26641/2307-5279.21.2.2017.150014

Keywords:

benign prostatic hyperplasia, uroflowmetry, urine flow acceleration

Abstract

Among the various parameters provided by uroflowmetry, the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmaxde10 мл/с) is regarded by most researchers as the most reliable in assessing the degree of bladder outlet obstruction in men. J.G. Wen et al. (2013) concluded that the urine flow acceleration is superior to maximum urinary flow rate in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction with benign prostatic hyperplasia patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the usefulness of the urodynamic parameter as urine flow acceleration. We present data on the state of the urine flow at urination 905 benign prostatic hyperplasia patients. The study was conducted with the help of uroflowmetr «Flow-K». Reducing the maximum urine flow rate Qmaxde10 ml/s was observed in 30,61% of the surveyed benign prostatic hyperplasia patients, while decreases in acceleration of the flow of urine UFAde2,0 ml/s2 – in 60,11% of patients, decrease in both indicators below the limit values – in 27,62% of patients. False-positive results in the patients with probable lack of bladder outlet obstruction in terms of the maximum urine flow rate and normal or close to normal values of other uroflowmetryс indicators criterion acceleration of the flow UFAde2,0 ml/s2 totaled 25,57%. Accelerate the flow of urine is the most sensitive indicator of pre-obstructive changes in urination in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. To improve the reliability of the presence of bladder outlet obstruction in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients is expedient to take into account the limit values like Qmaxde10 ml/s, and UFAde2,0 ml/s2 in the complex, while paying attention other indicators of uroflowmetry.

References

Abrams P.H., Griffiths D. The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine // Br. J. Urol. – 1979. – V. 51. – P. 129–134.

Урофлоуметрия / Е.Л. Вишневcкий, Д.Ю. Пушкарь, О.Б. Лоран и соавт. – М.: Печатный Город, 2004. – 220 с.

Chapple Ch.R., MacDiarmid S.A., Patel A. Urodynamics Made Easy, 3rd ed. – Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, 2009. – 221 p.

Siroky M.B., Olsson C.A., Krane R.J. The flow rate nomogram: II. Clinical correlation // J. Urol. – 1980. – V. 123. – P. 208–210.

Квятковская Т.А. Значение параметров урофлоуметрии при обследовании больных с доброкачественной гиперплазией предстательной железы в различных возрастных группах / Т.А. Квятковская, Е.А. Квятковский, А.Е. Квятковский // Урологія. – 2012. – № 1. – С. 34–41.

Квятковский Е.А., Квятковская Т.А., Квятковский А.Е. Объективизация нарушений уродинамики у больных с хроническим простатитом с использованием урофлоуметрии в сопоставлении с данными ультразвукового исследования // Здоровье мужчины. – 2012. – № 3. – С. 168–171.

Wen J.G., Cui L.G., Li Y.D et al. Urine flow acceleration is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH // J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technolog. Med. Sci. – 2013. – V. 33, N 4. – P. 563–566.

Published

2018-12-07

Issue

Section

Urology