4.1 Article

How do we diagnose detrusor underactivity? Comparison of diagnostic criteria based on an urodynamic measure

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 247-254

出版社

KOREAN UROLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.4.247

关键词

Detrusor underactivity; Diagnosis; Urodynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare several contemporary urodynamic criteria for diagnosing detrusor underactivity (DU) and estimate how well they coincide with each other. Materials and Methods: From our prospective urodynamic database we identified nonneurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) patients older than 60 years between 2003 and 2014. Patients were reclassified based on four and three contemporary criteria for DU among men and women. Each criterion was compared with the others using the McNemar test. Results: Urodynamic data of 4,372 patients (3,357 men and 1,015 women) were analyzed. In men, the prevalence of DU was estimated to be 56%, 17%, 5%, and 10% based on bladder contractility index, Abrams-Griffith number, maximal detrusor pressure at maximal flow rate (PdetQmax) 30, and bladder voiding efficiency (BVE) criteria. In women, 14.9%, 9.6%, and 6.4% of patients were classified as having DU based on maximal flow rate/postvoid residual (Qmax/PVR), PdetQmax 30, and BVE criteria. For individual subjects, all 4 criteria for men were significantly different from each other, while PdetQmax 30 and BVE criteria for women did not differ significantly (p=0.065). Additionally, BVE criterion for men and PdetQmax 30 and BVE criteria for women could distinguish the differences of patient age, free Qmax and free PVR between patient with and without DU. Conclusions: Each urodynamic criterion for men does not coincide with each other in the diagnosis of DU within individual subjects. On the other hand, PdetQmax 30 criteria and BVE criteria for women could be appropriately applied to clinical practice when diagnosing DU in women with LUTS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据