Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2007
[Length and volume of intravesical prostatic protrusion closely correlated with bladder outflow obstruction in BPH patients].
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhang Yong, Chen Xiao, Wu Zhi-jin, Zhang Peng, Zhang Xiao-dong, Yang Yong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the correlation of the length and volume of intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) with bladder outflow obstruction (BOO) in patients with BPH and to find a simple method for the diagnosis of the disease.
METHOD: The length and volume IPP were measured by transrectal ultrasound for 87 patients with BPH, the diagnosis of BOO was made by urodynamic tests and the correlation of the length and volume of IPP with BOO was analyzed, and reanalyzed 3 months after oral medication of a-blocker. The length and volume of IPP were measured again during the operation in 54 of the cases to confirm the ultrasound findings.
RESULTS: BOO was diagnosed in 51 of the patients. The coefficient of correlation between the length of IPP and BOO and that between the volume of IPP and BOO were 0.53 and 0.47 (P < 0.01). Not considering the dynamic factors, they were 0.69 and 0.62 (P < 0.01), respectively. BOO was confirmed in patients with the length of IPP > 1.0 cm or the volume > 1.5 ml. There was no significant difference between the results of transrectal ultrasound and the findings during the operation concerning the length and volume of IPP (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There is a close correlation between the length and volume of IPP and BOO, which can be conveniently applied to the diagnosis of BOO in BPH patients.
METHOD: The length and volume IPP were measured by transrectal ultrasound for 87 patients with BPH, the diagnosis of BOO was made by urodynamic tests and the correlation of the length and volume of IPP with BOO was analyzed, and reanalyzed 3 months after oral medication of a-blocker. The length and volume of IPP were measured again during the operation in 54 of the cases to confirm the ultrasound findings.
RESULTS: BOO was diagnosed in 51 of the patients. The coefficient of correlation between the length of IPP and BOO and that between the volume of IPP and BOO were 0.53 and 0.47 (P < 0.01). Not considering the dynamic factors, they were 0.69 and 0.62 (P < 0.01), respectively. BOO was confirmed in patients with the length of IPP > 1.0 cm or the volume > 1.5 ml. There was no significant difference between the results of transrectal ultrasound and the findings during the operation concerning the length and volume of IPP (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There is a close correlation between the length and volume of IPP and BOO, which can be conveniently applied to the diagnosis of BOO in BPH patients.