International urology and nephrology · 2007
Lower urinary tract symptoms, prostate volume, uroflowmetry, residual urine volume and bladder wall thickness in Turkish men: a comparative analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Işikay Levent, Turgay Akgül K, Nuhoğlu Bariş, Ozdemir Gürhan, Ayyildiz Ali, Cavumirza Taner, Germiyanoğlu Cankon
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the association between lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity and bladder wall thickness (BWT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 155 patients referred to outpatient clinics for LUTS. Patients were divided into three groups due to their IPSS. Group A included the patients with mild symptoms, group B included patients with moderate symptoms and group C included patients with severe symptoms. The patients were again divided into two groups due to their uroflowmetry results. Group 1 included the patients whose Q (max) </= 10 ml/s and group 2 included the patients whose Q (max) > 10 ml/s.
RESULTS: The mean BWT was 4.14 + 1.03 mm (from 3 to 9 mm). Although there was no difference between the IPSS groups in BWT (P = 0.325), it was statistically significant between uroflowmetry study groups (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: BWT seems to be significantly increased in men who have Q (max) values smaller than 10 ml/s.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 155 patients referred to outpatient clinics for LUTS. Patients were divided into three groups due to their IPSS. Group A included the patients with mild symptoms, group B included patients with moderate symptoms and group C included patients with severe symptoms. The patients were again divided into two groups due to their uroflowmetry results. Group 1 included the patients whose Q (max) </= 10 ml/s and group 2 included the patients whose Q (max) > 10 ml/s.
RESULTS: The mean BWT was 4.14 + 1.03 mm (from 3 to 9 mm). Although there was no difference between the IPSS groups in BWT (P = 0.325), it was statistically significant between uroflowmetry study groups (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: BWT seems to be significantly increased in men who have Q (max) values smaller than 10 ml/s.