Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2012
[Predictive value of the penile cuff-test for the assessment of bladder outlet obstruction in men].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Borrini L, Lukacs B, Ciofu C, Gaibisso B, Haab F, Amarenco G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performances and the acceptability of the penile cuff test (PCT) which is a non invasive method for the evaluation of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), in comparison with the pressure flow study (PFS), the actual gold-standard.
MATERIAL: Monocentric prospective study comparing the following subsets: "obstructed", "not obstructed" or "equivocal", deduced from PFS vs PCT, in 30 consecutive patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms. For the PCT, a cuff placed around the penis inflated automatically during the micturition, until flow rate interruption. The interruption cuff pressure revealed the isovolumetric bladder pressure (Pcuff-int). The data collected - Pcuff-int and maximum flow rate - were automatically reported on ICS modified nomogram.
RESULTS: With the PFS, 11 patients (39%) were classified "obstructed", six patients (22%) "non-obstructed" and 11 patients (39%) "equivocal". In 61% cases, the patient was classified in the same category by both techniques. The "obstructed positive predictive value" of the PCT was 82% and the "non-obstructed-equivocal negative predictive value" was 88%. The median acceptability visual analogic scale score was 1/10 (0-3) for the PCT whereas it was 5/10 (2-10) for the PFS. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.004).
CONCLUSION: The PCT was a reliable non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of BOO in male, in comparison with PFS. The predictive values of the PCT were relevant and its tolerance was better than PFS.
MATERIAL: Monocentric prospective study comparing the following subsets: "obstructed", "not obstructed" or "equivocal", deduced from PFS vs PCT, in 30 consecutive patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms. For the PCT, a cuff placed around the penis inflated automatically during the micturition, until flow rate interruption. The interruption cuff pressure revealed the isovolumetric bladder pressure (Pcuff-int). The data collected - Pcuff-int and maximum flow rate - were automatically reported on ICS modified nomogram.
RESULTS: With the PFS, 11 patients (39%) were classified "obstructed", six patients (22%) "non-obstructed" and 11 patients (39%) "equivocal". In 61% cases, the patient was classified in the same category by both techniques. The "obstructed positive predictive value" of the PCT was 82% and the "non-obstructed-equivocal negative predictive value" was 88%. The median acceptability visual analogic scale score was 1/10 (0-3) for the PCT whereas it was 5/10 (2-10) for the PFS. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.004).
CONCLUSION: The PCT was a reliable non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of BOO in male, in comparison with PFS. The predictive values of the PCT were relevant and its tolerance was better than PFS.