Analysis of the Pressure-Flow Study in Weak Detrusor Patients with Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy

Underactive bladder as defined by the International Continence Society in the 2023 Japan Community Health Survey

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the characteristics of underactive bladder (UAB) in participants of the 2023 Japan Community Health Survey (JaCS 2023).

METHODS

The JaCS 2023 was conducted among individuals aged 20-99 years old who had anonymously registered with a Japanese online research company. We divided the 6210 participants of JACS 2023 into UAB and non-UAB groups as defined by the International Continence Society Working Group (ICS-WG) and evaluated the prevalence of UAB as well as concomitant lower urinary tract symptoms. In addition, an association between UAB and vulnerability-related factors, namely participants' characteristics including frailty and comorbidities, was explored by univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

The prevalence of UAB in Japanese community-dwelling men and women aged 20 years or older was 9.3% and 4.0% overall (p < 0.0001), respectively, and when excluding benign prostatic hyperplasia or pelvic organ prolapse, 7.0% and 3.7%, respectively, (p < 0.0001). A significant increase in the prevalence of UAB with age was observed (p < 0.0001). In addition, storage symptoms including overactive bladder were more frequent in the UAB group than the non-UAB group (p < 0.0001). Frailty and several comorbidities were independently associated with UAB.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the definition proposed by the ICS-WG, the JaCS 2023 demonstrated that UAB was more prevalent in men than in women and increased in prevalence with age. Storage symptoms including overactive bladder sometimes coexisted with UAB. Vulnerability-related factors were associated with UAB.

Efficiency of HoLEP in patients with detrusor underactivity and renal dysfunction secondary to BPO

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the bladder and renal functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) complicated by detrusor underactivity (DU) and secondary renal dysfunction.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients were included in this prospective study. Eligible patients had urinary retention, a bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI) greater than 40, a bladder contractility index (BCI) less than 100, abnormal renal function at the initial diagnosis (serum creatinine > 132 µmol/L) and a renal pelvis anteroposterior diameter (PRAPD) > 1.5 cm bilaterally. All patients underwent HoLEP in a routine manner and were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery. The baseline characteristics of the patients, perioperative data, postoperative outcomes and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Significant improvement was observed in the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) score, maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual volume (PVR), Scr and RPAPD at the 6-month follow-up. Bladder wall thickness (BWT) exhibited a decreasing trend but did not significantly differ from the preoperative values. No grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred, and grade 3 and lower complications were treated conservatively. Three patients required reinsertion of indwelling catheters, and they were able to void spontaneously after two weeks of catheterisation training and medication treatment.

CONCLUSION

HoLEP is an effective treatment for men with BPO accompanied by DU and consequent renal function impairment. Patients are able to regain spontaneous voiding. Both bladder and renal functions were preserved and improved.

Detrusor Underactivity in Men with Bladder Outlet Obstruction

Detrusor underactivity (DU) and bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) are both common troublesome causes of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and often impact on quality of life simultaneously in men. This article aims to focus on DU with BOO in male patients.

METHODS

Original articles concerning DU with BOO were identified through literature research from PubMed and EMBASE database. We selected 38 articles in our review, including those concerning pathophysiology, evaluation, treatment and predictors for a successful BOO surgery for DU.

RESULTS

DU from BOO can result from several pathophysiological mechanisms. Although urodynamic study (UDS) is considered as a precise method to diagnose DU and BOO, there are some previous studies which proposed a non-invasive method to identify DU related to BOO. The treatment goal of DU is restoring bladder contractility using medication or surgery. Releasing outlet obstruction and resistance is the main strategy to restore bladder contractility when medication to directly increase bladder contractility has had limited efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

DU from BOO is poorly understood and is largely under-researched. The etiology and pathophysiology still need to be evaluated. Effective and safe medication to restore bladder contractility is also lacking. It remains valuable to perform further research to reveal the unknown aspects of DU.

Invasive urodynamic studies for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with voiding dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Invasive urodynamic tests are used to investigate men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and voiding dysfunction to determine a definitive objective diagnosis. The aim is to help clinicians select the treatment that is most likely to be successful. These investigations are invasive and time-consuming.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether performing invasive urodynamic investigation, as opposed to other methods of diagnosis such as non-invasive urodynamics or clinical history and examination alone, reduces the number of men with continuing symptoms of voiding dysfunction. This goal will be achieved by critically appraising and summarising current evidence from randomised controlled trials related to clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This review is not intended to consider whether urodynamic tests are reliable for making clinical diagnoses, nor whether one type of urodynamic test is better than another for this purpose.The following comparisons were made.• Urodynamics versus clinical management.• One type of urodynamics versus another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, issue 10), MEDLINE (1 January 1946 to Week 4 October 2014), MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations (covering 27 November 2014; all searched on 28 November 2014), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (1 January 2010 to Week 47 2014, searched on 28 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched on 1 December 2014 and 3 December 2014, respectively), as well as the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in men who were and were not investigated with the use of invasive urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamics against another, were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials, but data were available for only 339 men in one trial, of whom 188 underwent invasive urodynamic studies. We found evidence of risk of bias, such as lack of outcome information for 24 men in one arm of the trial.Statistically significant evidence suggests that the tests did change clinical decision making. Men in the invasive urodynamics arm were more likely to have their management changed than men in the control arm (proportion with change in management 24/188 (13%) vs 0/151 (0%), risk ratio (RR) 39.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.42 to 642.74). However, the quality of the evidence was low.Low-quality evidence indicates that men in the invasive urodynamics group were less likely to undergo surgery as treatment for voiding LUTS (164/188 (87%) vs 151/151 (100%), RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92).Investigators observed no difference in urine flow rates before and after surgery for LUTS (mean percentage increase in urine flow rate, 140% in invasive urodynamic group vs 149% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.13). Similarly, they found no differences between groups with regards to International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (mean percentage decrease in IPSS score, 58% in invasive urodynamics group vs 59% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.22).No evidence was available to demonstrate whether differences in management equated to improved health outcomes, such as relief of symptoms of voiding dysfunction or improved quality of life.No evidence from randomised trials revealed the adverse effects associated with invasive urodynamic studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although invasive urodynamic testing did change clinical decision making, we found no evidence to demonstrate whether this led to reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment. Larger definitive trials of better quality are needed, in which men are randomly allocated to management based on invasive urodynamic findings or to management based on findings obtained by other diagnostic means. This research will show whether performance of invasive urodynamics results in reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment.