The role of noninvasive penile cuff test in patients with bladder outlet obstruction.

Korean Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2015-10-01 Epub Date: 2015-10-13 DOI:10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.722
Seyed Mohamad Kazemeyni, Ehsan Otroj, Darab Mehraban, Gholam Hossein Naderi, Afsoon Ghadiri, Mahdi Jafari
{"title":"The role of noninvasive penile cuff test in patients with bladder outlet obstruction.","authors":"Seyed Mohamad Kazemeyni,&nbsp;Ehsan Otroj,&nbsp;Darab Mehraban,&nbsp;Gholam Hossein Naderi,&nbsp;Afsoon Ghadiri,&nbsp;Mahdi Jafari","doi":"10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the penile cuff test (PCT) and standard pressure-flow study (PFS) in patients with bladder outlet obstruction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 58 male patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were selected. Seven patients were excluded; thus, 51 patients were finally enrolled. Each of the patients underwent a PCT and a subsequent PFS. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratio were calculated. Chi-square and Fisher exact test were used to evaluate relationships between PCT results and maximal urine flow (Qmax); a p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean (±standard deviation) age of the study group was 65.5±10.4 years. Overall, by use of the PCT, 24 patients were diagnosed as being obstructed and 27 patients as unobstructed. At the subsequent PFS, 16 of the 24 patients diagnosed as obstructed by the PCT were confirmed to be obstructed, 4 were diagnosed as unobstructed, and the remaining 4 patients appeared equivocal. Of the 27 patients shown to be unobstructed by the PCT, 25 were confirmed to not be obstructed by PFS, with 13 equivocal and 12 unobstructed. Two patients were diagnosed as being obstructed. For detecting obstruction, the PCT showed an SE of 88.9% and an SP of 75.7%. The PPV was 66.7% and the NPV was 93%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PCT is a beneficial test for evaluating patients with LUTS. In particular, this instrument has an acceptable ability to reject obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia.</p>","PeriodicalId":17819,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Urology","volume":"56 10","pages":"722-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.722","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/10/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the penile cuff test (PCT) and standard pressure-flow study (PFS) in patients with bladder outlet obstruction.

Materials and methods: A total of 58 male patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were selected. Seven patients were excluded; thus, 51 patients were finally enrolled. Each of the patients underwent a PCT and a subsequent PFS. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratio were calculated. Chi-square and Fisher exact test were used to evaluate relationships between PCT results and maximal urine flow (Qmax); a p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The mean (±standard deviation) age of the study group was 65.5±10.4 years. Overall, by use of the PCT, 24 patients were diagnosed as being obstructed and 27 patients as unobstructed. At the subsequent PFS, 16 of the 24 patients diagnosed as obstructed by the PCT were confirmed to be obstructed, 4 were diagnosed as unobstructed, and the remaining 4 patients appeared equivocal. Of the 27 patients shown to be unobstructed by the PCT, 25 were confirmed to not be obstructed by PFS, with 13 equivocal and 12 unobstructed. Two patients were diagnosed as being obstructed. For detecting obstruction, the PCT showed an SE of 88.9% and an SP of 75.7%. The PPV was 66.7% and the NPV was 93%.

Conclusions: The PCT is a beneficial test for evaluating patients with LUTS. In particular, this instrument has an acceptable ability to reject obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无创阴茎袖试验在膀胱出口梗阻患者中的作用。
目的:本研究的目的是比较阴茎袖带试验(PCT)和标准压力-流量研究(PFS)在膀胱出口梗阻患者中的应用。材料与方法:选择有中重度下尿路症状(LUTS)的男性患者58例。排除7例患者;因此,最终纳入了51例患者。每位患者都接受了PCT和随后的PFS。计算敏感性(SE)、特异性(SP)、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和似然比。采用卡方检验和Fisher精确检验评价PCT结果与最大尿流量(Qmax)之间的关系;a结果:研究组平均(±标准差)年龄为65.5±10.4岁。总的来说,通过使用PCT, 24例患者被诊断为梗阻,27例患者被诊断为通畅。在随后的PFS中,经PCT诊断为梗阻的24例患者中,16例确诊为梗阻,4例诊断为通畅,其余4例出现模棱两可。在27例经PCT通畅的患者中,25例经PFS证实未通畅,其中13例含糊不清,12例通畅。两名患者被诊断为梗阻。PCT检查梗阻的SE为88.9%,SP为75.7%。PPV为66.7%,NPV为93%。结论:PCT是评价LUTS患者的有益试验。特别是,该仪器具有可接受的排斥良性前列腺增生引起的阻塞的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Letter to the editor: Impact of metabolic syndrome on response to medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia The authors reply: Impact of metabolic syndrome on response to medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia Semen parameters from 2002 to 2013 in Korea young population: A preliminary report Simultaneous treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse and stress urinary incontinence by using transobturator four arms polypropylene mesh Influence of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition on simple renal cysts in patients receiving bevacizumab-based chemotherapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1