Alt üriner sistem semptomları olan erkek hastaların değerlendirilmesinde mesane duvar kalınlığının yeri var mıdır?

Abstract

Amaç: Mesane duvar kalınlığının ( MDK), alt üriner sistem semptomları (AÜSS) olan erkek hastalarda, Uluslararası prostat semptom skoru (IPSS) ve üroflowmetri parametreleri ile ilişkisinin olup olmadığını araştırmaktır. Materyal- Metod: Üroloji polikliniğine Haziran 2021- Ocak 2022 tarihleri arasında AÜSS ile başvuran erkek hastaların prostat spesifik antijen (PSA), prostat volümü, işeme sonrası rezidü idrar (PVR), IPSS, Maksimum akış hızı (Qmax), Ortalama akış hızı (Qort), üroflowmetri, MDK değerleri ve intravezikal prostatik protrüzyon dereceleri (İPP) kaydedildi. Hastalar MDK açısından 2 gruba ayrıldı ( Grup: 1 MDK < 5 mm; Grup 2: MDK ≥ 5 mm). Bu iki grup arasındaki başlangıçta kaydedilen değerler arasındaki fark analiz edildi. Bulgular: Dahil edilen 110 hastanın (Grup 1:65, Grup 1:45) ortalama yaşı 59,2 ± 9,3; ortalama MDK 4,3 ± 1,5 idi. Her iki grup arasında PSA, prostat volümü, üroflow toplam akım miktarı, Qmax, Qort, IPSS ve IPP değerleri istatistiksel anlamlı farklı bulundu. Her iki grup arasında yaş ve PVR değerleri benzer bulunmuştur. Mesane duvar kalınlığı ile IPSS ve Qort değerleri arasında güçlü, Qmax değeri arasında çok güçlü korelasyonel ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Mesane duvar kalınlığı, üroloji pratiğinde IPSS ve üroflowmetri değerlerinin tahmini için kullanılabilen basit bir sonografik ölçümdür.

Keywords

• mesane duvar kalınlığı
• alt üriner sistem semptomları
• ultrasonografi

Does bladder wall thickness have a place in the evaluation of male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms?

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether bladder wall thickness (BWT) is associated with The International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) and uroflowmetry parameters in male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Material- Methods: Prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, post-void residual (PVR) urine volume, IPSS, maximum and average urinary flow rates ( Qmax, Qave), BWT and intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) grades of male patients who applied to the urology outpatient clinic with LUTS between June 2021 and January 2022 were recorded. .Patients were divided into 2 groups in terms of BWT (Group: 1 BWT < 5 mm; Group 2: MDK ≥ 5 mm). We compared IPSS, Qmax, Qave, PVR, PSA, prostat volume and IPP grades between two groups. Results: 110 patients were included in the study (Group 1: 65, Group 1: 45). Mean age was 59.2 ± 9.3; mean BWT was 4.3 ± 1.5. PSA, prostate volume, total urine volume ,Qmax, Qave, IPSS and IPP values were found to be statistically different between the two groups. Age and PVR were similar between the two groups. In addition, a strong correlation was found between BWT and IPSS- Qave, and a very strong correlation between Qmax. Conclusion: BWT is a simple sonographic measurement that can be used to estimate IPSS and uroflowmetry parameters in urology practice.

Keywords

• bladder wall thickness
• lower urinary tract symptoms
• ultrasonography

References

1. 1. Gravas S, Cornu J, Gacci M, et al. Management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). 2019.
2. 2. Dabhoiwala N, Osawa D, Lim ATL, Abrams P. The ICS-‘BPH’Study: uroflowmetry, lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction. Br J Urol. 1998;82:619-23.
3. 3. Kessler TM, Gerber R, Burkhard FC, Studer UE, Danuser H. Ultrasound assessment of detrusor thickness in men—can it predict bladder outlet obstruction and replace pressure flow study? The Journal of urology. 2006;175(6):2170-3.
4. 4. Manieri C, Carter SSC, Romano G, TRUCCHI A, Valenti M, Tubaro A. The diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in men by ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness. The Journal of urology. 1998;159(3):761-5.
5. 5. Tan YH, Foo KT. Intravesical prostatic protrusion predicts the outcome of a trial without catheter following acute urine retention. The Journal of urology. 2003;170(6):2339-41.
6. 6. Eze BU, Ani CO, Mbaeri TU. Is intravesical prostatic protrusion associated with more complications in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients? LUTS: Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. 2021;13(4):468-74.
7. 7. Hakenberg OW, Linne C, Manseck A, Wirth MP. Bladder wall thickness in normal adults and men with mild lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic enlargement. Neurourology and Urodynamics: Official Journal of the International Continence Society. 2000;19(5):585-93.
8. 8. Tubaro A, De Nunzio C, Trucchi A, Palleschi G, Miano L. The effect of bladder outlet obstruction treatment on ultrasound-determined bladder wall thickness. Reviews in urology. 2005;7(Suppl 6):S35.

9. 9. Park J, Suh J, Yoo S, Cho MC, Son H. Bladder wall thickness and detrusor wall thickness can help to predict the bladder outlet obstruction in men over the age of 70 years with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Investigative and clinical urology. 2020;61(5):491.
10. 10. Eze B, Mbaeri T, Orakwe J. Anterior Bladder Wall Thickness, Post‑Void Urine Residue, and Bladder Emptying Efficiency as Indicators of Bladder Dysfunction in Nigerian Men with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2020;23(9):1215-.
11. 11. Salah Azab S, Elsheikh MG. The impact of the bladder wall thickness on the outcome of the medical treatment using alpha-blocker of BPH patients with LUTS. The Aging Male. 2015;18(2):89-92.
12. 12. Karakose A, Aydogdu O, Atesci YZ. The relationship between bladder wall thickness and lower urinary tract symptoms: Does bladder wall thickness change after alpha-blocker therapy with alfuzosin? Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2014;8(1-2):E26.
13. 13. Oelke M. International Consultation on Incontinence‐Research Society (ICI‐RS) report on non‐invasive urodynamics: the need of standardization of ultrasound bladder and detrusor wall thickness measurements to quantify bladder wall hypertrophy. Neurourology and Urodynamics: Official Journal of the International Continence Society. 2010;29(4):634-9.
14. 14. Azab SS, El Sayed O, El Kafoury M. Impact of Bladder Wall Thickness on the Outcomes of Antimuscarinic Treatment in Women with Overactive Bladder. Urologia Internationalis. 2022;106(3):291-7.
15. 15. Üçer O, Gümüş B, Albaz AC, Pekindil G. Assessment of bladder wall thickness in women with overactive bladder. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2016;42(2):97.
16. 16. Blatt AH, Titus J, Chan L. Ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness in the assessment of voiding dysfunction. The Journal of urology. 2008;179(6):2275-9.
17. 17. Panayi D, Tekkis P, Fernando R, Hendricken C, Khullar V. Ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness is associated with the overactive bladder syndrome. Neurourology and urodynamics. 2010;29(7):1295-8.
18. 18. Cvitković Kuzmić A, Brkljačić B, Ivanković D. Sonographic measurement of detrusor muscle thickness in healthy children. Pediatric nephrology. 2001;16(12):1122-5.
19. 19. Cvitković-Kuzmić A, Brkljačić B, Ivanković D, Grga A. Ultrasound assessment of detrusor muscle thickness in children with non-neuropathic bladder/sphincter dysfunction. European urology. 2002;41(2):214-9.
20. 20. Uluocak N, Erdemır F, Parlaktas BS, Caglar MK, Hasıloglu Z, Etıkan I. Bladder wall thickness in healthy school-aged children. Urology. 2007;69(4):763-6.
21. 21. Anzia LE, Johnson CJ, Mao L, et al. Comprehensive non-invasive analysis of lower urinary tract anatomy using MRI. Abdominal Radiology. 2021;46(4):1670-6.