Lower urinary tract symptoms · 2017
Correlation Between Residual Volume of Male Patients After Uroflowmetry and Random Residual Volume.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Okçelik Sezgin, Soydan Hasan, Ateş Ferhat, Yilmaz Ömer, Malkoç Ercan, Şenkul Temuçin, Karademir Kenan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to examine correlation between Post-void residual urine (PVR) after uroflowmetry and random PVR.
METHODS: Male patients reporting to the Urology outpatient clinic with LUTS were selected. Patients' age, prostate volume, bladder capacity, voided volume, maximum flow rate, average flow rate, random PVR and PVR after uroflowmetry were recorded. We evaluated the correlations between these parameters. Also we assessed if there was a difference between random PVR and PVR after uroflowmetry. We divided PVR after uroflowmetry and random PVR into three groups: Group 1: 0-50 mL, Group 2: 51-100 mL and Group 3: >100 mL. Also we divided the patients into two groups according to bladder capacity as Group 1: ≤400 mL and Group 2: >400 mL. We compared these groups to determine whether a significant difference.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients applying to the urology outpatient clinic were assessed between 2013 and 2014. PVR after uroflowmetry was significantly higher than random PVR (P < 0.001). When we divided PVR after uroflowmetry and random PVR into three groups there was a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.02). When we divided the patients into two groups according to bladder capacity as Group 1: ≤400 mL and Group 2: >400 mL, PVR after uroflowmetry was different, but random PVR was similar (P < 0.001, P = 0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: PVR after uroflowmetry seems to be incorrectly high in patients whose bladder capacity is above 400 mL.
METHODS: Male patients reporting to the Urology outpatient clinic with LUTS were selected. Patients' age, prostate volume, bladder capacity, voided volume, maximum flow rate, average flow rate, random PVR and PVR after uroflowmetry were recorded. We evaluated the correlations between these parameters. Also we assessed if there was a difference between random PVR and PVR after uroflowmetry. We divided PVR after uroflowmetry and random PVR into three groups: Group 1: 0-50 mL, Group 2: 51-100 mL and Group 3: >100 mL. Also we divided the patients into two groups according to bladder capacity as Group 1: ≤400 mL and Group 2: >400 mL. We compared these groups to determine whether a significant difference.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients applying to the urology outpatient clinic were assessed between 2013 and 2014. PVR after uroflowmetry was significantly higher than random PVR (P < 0.001). When we divided PVR after uroflowmetry and random PVR into three groups there was a significant difference between the groups (P = 0.02). When we divided the patients into two groups according to bladder capacity as Group 1: ≤400 mL and Group 2: >400 mL, PVR after uroflowmetry was different, but random PVR was similar (P < 0.001, P = 0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: PVR after uroflowmetry seems to be incorrectly high in patients whose bladder capacity is above 400 mL.