PTU - Polskie Towarzystwo Urologiczne
home page
current numbers
archival numbers
list of articles:
list przewodni/covering letter
editor
Scientific Committee
publisher
subscription
advertising
important links

The usefulness of pQ Schäfer?s nomogram in recommendation patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia to interventional therapies
Article published in Urologia Polska 2005/58/4.

authors

Andrzej Prajsner 1, Wojciech Szewczyk 1, Włodzimierz Błaszkiewicz 2
1 I Katedra i Klinika Urologii Śląskiej Akademii Medycznej w Katowicach
Kierownik kliniki: prof. nadzw. ŚAM dr hab. Andrzej Prajsner
2 Oddział Urologiczny Szpitala Wojewódzkiego im. Jana Pawła II w Bełchatowie
Ordynator oddziału: dr n. med. Piotr Marks

keywords

prostate, benign prostatic hyperplasia, pressure-flow study, pQ Schäfer's nomogram

summary

the aim of the study
The aim of the study was to answer the question to what extent the estimation of the subvesical resistance and the strength of the detrusor, which was based on pressure-flow study, may have an effect on the verification of indications to the TUR of the prostate, established on LUTS intensity and data from natural uroflowmetry.
material and methods
A total number of 84 men, ranged in age from 45 to 74 years (the average 61.8), was examined in the study. All these patients were qualified to the transurethral electoresection of the BPH on the basis of individual's medical history, LUTS intensity, digital rectal examination (DRE) and natural uroflowmetry (maximal peak flow was less than 15 ml/sec). The degree of subvesical resistance and strenght of the detrusor were determinated on the basis of pressure-flow study using PQ Schäfer's nomogram.
results
A low subvesical resistance (I and II degree) was detected among 22 patients (26.1%), whereas moderate resistance (III degree) among 6 (7.2%). The remaining 56 men (66.7%) presented high subvesical resistance including 6 patients with the highest degree. A surgery treatment was performed only on the patients with III and higher degrees of subvesical resistance and these with II degree, but with weak detrusor and with post voiding residual more than 20% of functional bladder capacity.
conclusions
The indication to interventional therapies among men with BPH can be verified by pressure-flow study which establishes the degree of the subvesical resistance as well as the strenght of the detrusor. The use of simple PQ Schäfer's nomogram doesn't require a very complicated software and can be usefull for owners of very simple urodynamical devices.

references

  1. Hald T, Kroyer K, Nordling N et al: Clinical urodynamics in BPH. Eur Urol Updates Series 1993, 2, 74-79.
  2. Abrams P: New words for old: lower urinary tract symptoms for ?prostatism?. Br Med J 1994, 308, 929-930.
  3. Abrams P, Buzelin JM, Griffiths D et al: The urodynamic assessment of lower urinary tract symptoms. In Denis L, Griffiths K, Khoury S i in. Proceedings of the Fourth International Consulatation on Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy. Plymouth: Health Publications Ltd, 1998; 323-378.
  4. Abrams P: Bladder outlet obstruction index, bladder contractility index and bladder voiding efficiency: three simple indices to define bladder voiding functio. BJU International 1999, 84, 14-15.
  5. Schäfer W: Analysis of bladder-outlet obstruction with linearized passive urethral resistence relation, lin PURR, and disease-specific approach for grading obstruction: from complex to simple. World J Urol 1995, 13, 47-58.
  6. Abrams P, Blaivas J G, Stanton SL, Andersen JT: 6th Report on the Standardisation of Terminology of Lower Urinary Tract Function. Neurourol Urodyn 1988, 7, 403-426.
  7. Abrams P, Cardozo P, Fall M et al: Standardisation Subcommittee of the Inrernational Continence Society. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 2002, 21,167-178.
  8. Schäfer W, Waterbar F, Langen PH, Deutz FJ: Simplified graphic procedure for detailed analysis of detrusor and outlet function during voiding. Neurourol Urodyn 1989, 8, 405-407.
  9. Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ: The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. Br J Urol 1979, 51, 29-134.
  10. Roehrborn CG: Initial diagnostic evaluation of men with lower urinary tract symptoms. The 3rd International Consultation ob. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Monaco, 1995. Proceedings 169-229.
  11. Porru D, Jallous H, Cavalli V i in: Prognostic value of a combination of IPSS, flow rate and residual urine volume compared to pressure-flow studies in the preoperative evaluation of symptomatic BPH. Eur Urol 2002, 41, 246-449.
  12. Seaman EK, Jacobs BZ, Blaivas JG i in: Persistence or recurrence of symptoms after transurethral resection of the prostate: a urodynamic asessment. J Urol 1994, 152, 935-937.
  13. Zbrzeźniak M, Borówka A, Husiatyński W i in: Przydatność badania urodynamicznego do kwalifikowania chorych do leczenia chirurgicznego z powodu łagodnego rozrostu stercza. Urol Pol 2005, 1, 34-38.
  14. Reynard J, Lim CS, Abrams P: Pressure-flow studies in men: the obstructive effect of urethral catheter. J Urol 1995, 153, 453A.

correspondence

Andrzej Prajsner
ul. Tysiąclecia 84/6
40-871 Katowice
tel. (032) 271 65 11
aprajsner@dotcom-sc.com.pl