Urine flow acceleration is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH
Wen JG, Cui LG, Li YD, Shang XP, Zhu W, Zhang RL, Meng QJ, Zhang SJ. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2013 Aug;33(4):563-6. doi: 10.1007/s11596-013-1159-y. Epub 2013 Aug 1.

Source

Urodynamic Center and Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, China, jgwen@zzu.edu.cn.

Abstract

We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration (UFA, mL/s(2)) is superior to maximum uroflow (Qmax, mL/s) in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In this study, a total of 50 men with BPH (age: 58±12.5 years) and 50 controls (age: 59±13.0 years) were included. A pressure-flow study was used to determine the presence of BOO according to the recommendations of Incontinence Control Society (ICS). The results showed that the UFA and Qmax in BPH group were much lower than those in the control group [(2.05±0.85) vs. (4.60±1.25) mL/s(2) and (8.50±1.05) vs. (13.00±3.35) mL/s] (P<0.001). According to the criteria (UFA<2.05 mL/s(2), Qmax<10 mL/s), the sensitivity and specificity of UFA vs. Qmax in diagnosing BOO were 88%, 75% vs. 81%, 63%. UFA vs. Omax, when compared with the results of P-Q chart (the kappa values in corresponding analysis), was 0.55 vs. 0.35. The prostate volume, post void residual and detrusor pressure at Qmax between the two groups were 28.6±9.8 vs. 24.2±7.6 mL, 60.4±1.4 vs. 21.3±2.5 mL and 56.6±8.3 vs. 21.7±6.1 cmH2O, respectively (P<0.05). It was concluded that the UFA is a useful urodynamic parameter, and is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH.