How correlated is BOO with different objective parameters commonly used in evaluation of BPH: a prospective study

Bladder Oversensitivity Is Associated with Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Men

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether there is an objective association between bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and abnormal sensation parameters during filling cystometry in men. Methods: This was a prospective study. Consecutive patients referred for urodynamic examination were assessed for eligibility. Patients with permanent catheters, BPH related surgery, neurologic disease, or inability to complete the urodynamic study were excluded. All patients underwent full physical examination, as well as renal and bladder ultrasound including prostate size estimation, post void residual volume, and PSA, and they completed the International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) questionnaire. The cohort was divided into obstructed and un-obstructed groups according to the Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index. Results: Ninety of the 115 patients recruited were obstructed (78%). Obstructed patients had significantly higher PSA, larger prostate volume, and higher IPSS. Detrusor overactivity did not differ between the two groups (45.6% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.83). First, normal, strong, and urgent desires to void were significantly lower in obstructed men: median (IQR) 118 (57−128) vs. 180 (80−200), 171 (85−257) vs. 227 (125−350), 221 (150−383) vs. 307 (180−477), and 276 (197−480) vs. 344 (280−535), respectively. First desire to void (FDV) had the highest area under the curve (AUC = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.76−0.90, p < 0.001) for predicting BOO with a Youden index of 0.78 at 140 mL. Conclusions: Our results suggest that there is a strong association between bladder oversensitivity and BOO in men. Men with FDV <140 mL had a significantly increased probability of being obstructed. These findings may shed a light on the pathophysiological connection between obstruction and enhanced afferent signaling from the bladder.

The diagnostic value of non-invasive methods for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: A meta-analysis

Purpose

We conducted the first meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic value of non-invasive methods for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

Methods

We searched a range of databases for relevant publications up to June 2022, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Retrieved studies were then reviewed for eligibility and data were extracted. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We then performed a formal meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of various non-invasive methods for diagnosing BOO in men.

Results

We identified 51 eligible studies including 7,897 patients for meta-analysis. The majority of the studies had a low overall RoB. Detrusor wall thickness (DWT) (pooled sensitivity (SSY): 71%; specificity (SPY): 88%; diagnostic odds ratio (DOR): 17.15; area under curve (AUC) 0.87) and the penile cuff test (PCT) (pooled SSY: 87%; SPY: 78%; DOR: 23.54; AUC: 0.88) showed high accuracy for diagnosing BOO. Furthermore, data suggested that DWT had the highest pooled SPY (0.89), DOR (32.58), and AUC (0.90), when using 2 mm as the cut-off.

Conclusion

Of the non-invasive tests tested, DWT and PCT had the highest levels of diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing BOO in men with LUTS. DWT, with a 2 mm cut-off, had the highest level of accuracy. These two methods represent good options as non-invasive tools for evaluating BOO in males.