AIMS: Intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) may be an underutilized modality for the assessment of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). Pressure flow studies or urodynamics have long been the gold standard for the evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men but are invasive, time-consuming and costly. Potentially, IPP may be a useful adjunct prior to performing urodynamics. METHODS: Measurement of IPP is taken in the sagittal view, using the transabdominal ultrasound. It is the vertical height from the tip of the protrusion to the base of the prostate. This technique was previously described. We reviewed previous publications that studied the accuracy, positive predictive value and clinical use of IPP. In addition, we noted the comments regarding the challenges of using this technique. RESULTS: IPP has been shown to have a positive predictive value of 72% for BOO. It has been calculated to have an area under curve (AUC) value of 0.71 and 0.84 in some stuies. Clinically, it may be used to predict the outcome of a trial without catheter following acute retention of urine. Patients with higher IPP grade were noted to have a higher risk of clinical progression. Studies have also shown that men with higher IPP are poorer responders to medical treatment such as α-blockers. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other modalities, the advantage of IPP in assessing BOO may be its easy applicability and non-invasive nature. Therefore, there is a consideration for a larger role of IPP in bedside assessment and management of BOO in daily practice. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:535-537, 2016.
AIMS: Intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) may be an underutilized modality for the assessment of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). Pressure flow studies or urodynamics have long been the gold standard for the evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men but are invasive, time-consuming and costly. Potentially, IPP may be a useful adjunct prior to performing urodynamics. METHODS: Measurement of IPP is taken in the sagittal view, using the transabdominal ultrasound. It is the vertical height from the tip of the protrusion to the base of the prostate. This technique was previously described. We reviewed previous publications that studied the accuracy, positive predictive value and clinical use of IPP. In addition, we noted the comments regarding the challenges of using this technique. RESULTS: IPP has been shown to have a positive predictive value of 72% for BOO. It has been calculated to have an area under curve (AUC) value of 0.71 and 0.84 in some stuies. Clinically, it may be used to predict the outcome of a trial without catheter following acute retention of urine. Patients with higher IPP grade were noted to have a higher risk of clinical progression. Studies have also shown that men with higher IPP are poorer responders to medical treatment such as α-blockers. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other modalities, the advantage of IPP in assessing BOO may be its easy applicability and non-invasive nature. Therefore, there is a consideration for a larger role of IPP in bedside assessment and management of BOO in daily practice. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:535-537, 2016.