Intravesical protrusion of the prostate as a predictive method of bladder outlet obstruction

Reis, Leonardo Oliveira; Barreiro, Guilherme; Baracat, Jamal; Prudente, Alessandro; D’Ancona, Carlos Arturo Levi

doi:10.1590/s1677-55382008000500012

Cited by 48 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…IPP. IPP was studied in a total of 1013 patients across ten studies [6,8,9,13,15,17,23,28,36,39]. Five studies used a cutoff of 10 mm to define BOO, and overall reported similar diagnostic accuracy to uroflowmetry alone, with median sensitivity of 67.8% and specificity of 74.8%, a PPV of 73.8% and NPV of 69.3%.…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracy Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of the Performance of Noninvasive Tests in Diagnosing Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords:Bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) Men Lower urinary tract symptoms Diagnosis Urodynamics Noninvasive Systematic review Please visit www.eu-acme.org/ europeanurology to read and answer questions on-line. The EU-ACME credits will then be attributed automatically. AbstractContext: Several noninvasive tests have been developed for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men to avoid the burden and morbidity associated with invasive urodynamics. The diagnostic accuracy of these tests, however, remains uncertain. Objective: To systematically review available evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tests in diagnosing BOO in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) using a pressure-flow study as the reference standard. Evidence acquisition: The EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal databases were searched up to May 18, 2016. All studies reporting diagnostic accuracy for noninvasive tests for BOO or detrusor underactivity in men with LUTS compared to pressure-flow studies were included. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched the reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed the data extraction. The quality of evidence and risk of bias were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Evidence synthesis: The search yielded 2774 potentially relevant reports. After screening titles and abstracts, 53 reports were retrieved for full-text screening, of which 42 (recruiting a total of 4444 patients) were eligible. Overall, the results were predominantly based on findings from nonrandomised experimental studies and, within the limits of such study designs, the quality of evidence was typically moderate across the literature. Differences in noninvasive test threshold values and variations in the urodynamic definition of BOO between studies limited the comparability of the data.

show abstract

Section: Diagnostic Accuracy Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of the Performance of Noninvasive Tests in Diagnosing Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[20] IVPP is classified into 3 grades: grade I <5 mm, grade II = 5-10 mm, and grade III >10 mm. Reis et al [21] proposed a cut-off of 5 mm in diagnosing BOO, with 95% sensitivity and 50% specificity, respectively. IVPP appears to be an anatomical rather than a functional diagnostic tool for BOO, which means that the information about detrusor muscle contractility will be deficient.…”

Section: Ultrasonic Estimated Intra-vesical Prostatic Protrusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging assessments of lower urinary tract dysfunctions: Future steps

Farag¹,

Heesakkers²

2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urodynamic tests are the standard diagnostic method for lower urinary tract dysfunctions (LUTD). However, these tests are invasive. The current review describes the noninvasive imaging techniques that have been used to monitor LUTD. The main imaging technologies that have been applied in diagnosing LUTD were 2D ultrasonography, Doppler ultrasonography, and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Ultrasonographic parameters, such as bladder wall thickness (BWT), detrusor wall thickness (DWT), and ultrasound-estimated bladder weight (UEBW), have been proposed as surrogates for bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or detrusor overactivity (DO). Few studies have reported diagnostic cut-offs in diagnosing BOO or DO; thus, there is still a need to standardize the measurement method. NIRS can detect the hemodynamic changes related to DO and BOO in real-time, which could be advantageous in clinical practice , but the liability of NIRS to motion artefacts is a limitation. Bladder strain imaging in real-time using 2D ultrasound enables noninvasive estimation of the dynamic changes in the bladder wall during voiding. Many imaging techniques have been used to monitor the urinary bladder during the storage and voiding phases of the micturition cycle. These techniques were either static [i.e., measuring fixed parameters, such as BWT, DWT, UEBW, and intravesical prostatic protrusion (IVPP)] or dynamic (monitoring the structural and hemodynamic changes in the bladder wall in real-time). These techniques are currently being developed and standardized for potential use in diagnosing LUTD in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…66% of the obstructed patients had IPP more than 10 mm and 34% had IPP < 10 mm. Another prospective study by Leonardo O Reis et al 6 in Latin American patients showed that 47% of the obstructed patients had IPP more than 10 mm. This difference may be due to geographic and racial variations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Comparison between prostate volume and intravesical prostatic protrusion in detecting bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia

Hossain

Alam

Habib

et al. 2012

Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intravesical protrusion of the prostate as a predictive method of bladder outlet obstruction

Abstract: Objective: Materials and Methods:- Results:Conclusion:

Cited by 48 publications

References 27 publications

Systematic Review of the Performance of Noninvasive Tests in Diagnosing Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

Systematic Review of the Performance of Noninvasive Tests in Diagnosing Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

Imaging assessments of lower urinary tract dysfunctions: Future steps

Comparison between prostate volume and intravesical prostatic protrusion in detecting bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About