Literature DB >> 19916009

The role of invasive and non-invasive urodynamics in male voiding lower urinary tract symptoms.

Brian A Parsons1, Elizabeth Bright, Ahmed M Shaban, Anne Whitehouse, Marcus J Drake.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Troublesome voiding lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are a common problem in men, particularly with ageing. Implicitly, management of voiding LUTS can be guided by accurate determination of underlying mechanisms, distinguishing men with voiding symptoms caused by outlet obstruction from those with reduced bladder contractility.
METHODS: A PubMed search of the published literature on invasive and non-invasive methods used to assess lower urinary tract function was carried out.
RESULTS: A multitude of methods have been applied to assess LUTS. Multichannel pressure flow studies (PFS) are the standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction and underlying mechanisms of LUTS, though their invasive nature can be difficult to tolerate, and improved prediction of treatment outcome is disputed. Uroflowmetry and post void residual measurement are insufficient to make a definitive diagnosis. Ultrasound-derived measurements of bladder wall thickness and estimated bladder weight offer a potential non-invasive alternative to PFS, but their diagnostic parameters are still under evaluation. Non-invasive methods that measure isovolumetric bladder pressure by interrupting the urinary stream can reproducibly measure pressure and urinary flow, but are unable to determine the effects of abdominal straining during voiding and give no insight into urine storage symptoms. Doppler ultrasound during urethral flow is informative, but it is an expensive approach whose clinical utility has yet to be established.
CONCLUSION: A variety of non-invasive urodynamic and non-urodynamic techniques have been used to evaluate LUTS and some show great promise. However, there is as yet, insufficient evidence to justify replacement of invasive voiding cystometry by these investigational approaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19916009     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-009-0488-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  54 in total

1.  The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society.

Authors:  Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.696

2.  The flow rate nomogram: I. Development.

Authors:  M B Siroky; C A Olsson; R J Krane
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Comparison of intravesical prostatic protrusion, prostate volume and serum prostatic-specific antigen in the evaluation of bladder outlet obstruction.

Authors:  Kok Bin Lim; Henry Ho; Keong Tatt Foo; Michael Yuet Chen Wong; Stephanie Fook-Chong
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.369

Review 4.  Noninvasive methods of diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in men. Part 1: Nonurodynamic approach.

Authors:  Mohammed Belal; Paul Abrams
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia as a function of age, volume and ultrasonic appearance of the prostate.

Authors:  M Kojima; Y Naya; W Inoue; O Ukimura; M Watanabe; M Saitoh; H Watanabe
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries: results of the EPIC study.

Authors:  Debra E Irwin; Ian Milsom; Steinar Hunskaar; Kate Reilly; Zoe Kopp; Sender Herschorn; Karin Coyne; Con Kelleher; Christian Hampel; Walter Artibani; Paul Abrams
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-10-02       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Pressure flow urodynamic studies: the gold standard for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction.

Authors:  Victor W Nitti
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

8.  The diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in men by ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness.

Authors:  C Manieri; S S Carter; G Romano; A Trucchi; M Valenti; A Tubaro
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Effect of voiding position on uroflowmetric parameters and post-void residual urine volume in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  Ali Unsal; Ersin Cimentepe
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2004

10.  Noninvasive quantitative method for measuring isovolumetric bladder pressure and urethral resistance in the male: I. Experimental validation of the theory.

Authors:  L P McRae; M R Bottaccini; D M Gleason
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.696

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Is multichannel urodynamic assessment necessary before considering a surgical treatment of BPH? Pros and cons.

Authors:  Xavier Biardeau; Mohamed A Elkoushy; Shachar Aharony; Mostafa Elhilali; Jacques Corcos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: the UPSTREAM non-inferiority RCT.

Authors:  Amanda L Lewis; Grace J Young; Lucy E Selman; Caoimhe Rice; Clare Clement; Cynthia A Ochieng; Paul Abrams; Peter S Blair; Christopher Chapple; Cathryn Ma Glazener; Jeremy Horwood; John S McGrath; Sian Noble; Gordon T Taylor; J Athene Lane; Marcus J Drake
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 3.  The Use of Urodynamics Assessment Before the Surgical Treatment of BPH.

Authors:  Ahmed El-Zawahry; Shaheen Alanee; Angela Malan-Elzawahry
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) for diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  K Bailey; P Abrams; P S Blair; C Chapple; C Glazener; J Horwood; J A Lane; J McGrath; S Noble; R Pickard; G Taylor; G J Young; M J Drake; A L Lewis
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation.

Authors:  Adittya K Sharma; Ali Poonawala; G N Girish; A J Kamath; R Keshavmurthy; N H Nagaraja; G K Venkatesh; C S Ratkal
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2013-07-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.