Archivos espanoles de urologia · 2026
Effect of Two Different Standing Urination Positions on Clinical Assessment in Patients With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: A Significant Factor or a Negligible Detail?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kacan Turgay, Yildiz Ali Kaan, Demir Demirhan Orsan, Gokkurt Yusuf, Bardakci Alp, Erbay Omer Furkan, Keseroglu Bugra Bilge, Karakan Tolga
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate whether urinating by pulling down the trousers vs. unzipping the trousers only has an effect on maximum flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qave), voiding time and post-void residual urine (PVR) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostate obstruction (BPO).
METHODS: Patients receiving alpha-blocker therapy and habitually voiding in a standing position were prospectively enrolled. Each participant underwent uroflowmetry (UF) in two separate sessions, with one session involving voiding by pulling the trousers down to the knees and the other involving voiding by unzipping the trousers only. Qmax, Qave, voiding time and PVR volume were recorded and compared between the two positions.
RESULTS: A total of 74 patients were included in the analysis. The mean Qmax was 10.80 ± 3.20 mL/s in the unzipping position and 13.10 ± 4.04 mL/s in the pulling-down position. The Qave, voiding time and PVR in the unzipping position were 5.01 ± 2.57 mL/s, 70.80 ± 50.40 s and 63.99 ± 38.11 mL, respectively, and those in the pulling-down position were 5.89 ± 3.09 mL/s, 58.20 ± 26.90 s and 53.38 ± 38.96 mL, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in Qmax (p < 0.001), Qave (p < 0.001), PVR volume (p < 0.001) and voiding time (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LUTS secondary to BPO who void in a standing position, the specific subposition (pulling down trousers vs. unzipping) significantly affects UF parameters and PVR volumes. These findings demonstrate that standing voiding should not be considered as a single, uniform posture.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06260917; available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06260917.
METHODS: Patients receiving alpha-blocker therapy and habitually voiding in a standing position were prospectively enrolled. Each participant underwent uroflowmetry (UF) in two separate sessions, with one session involving voiding by pulling the trousers down to the knees and the other involving voiding by unzipping the trousers only. Qmax, Qave, voiding time and PVR volume were recorded and compared between the two positions.
RESULTS: A total of 74 patients were included in the analysis. The mean Qmax was 10.80 ± 3.20 mL/s in the unzipping position and 13.10 ± 4.04 mL/s in the pulling-down position. The Qave, voiding time and PVR in the unzipping position were 5.01 ± 2.57 mL/s, 70.80 ± 50.40 s and 63.99 ± 38.11 mL, respectively, and those in the pulling-down position were 5.89 ± 3.09 mL/s, 58.20 ± 26.90 s and 53.38 ± 38.96 mL, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in Qmax (p < 0.001), Qave (p < 0.001), PVR volume (p < 0.001) and voiding time (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LUTS secondary to BPO who void in a standing position, the specific subposition (pulling down trousers vs. unzipping) significantly affects UF parameters and PVR volumes. These findings demonstrate that standing voiding should not be considered as a single, uniform posture.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06260917; available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06260917.