Relationship between maximum voided volume obtained by bladder diary compared to contemporaneous uroflowmetry in men and women

ABSTRACT Introduction: The 24-hour bladder diary is considered to be the gold standard for evaluating maximum voided volume (MVV). However, we observed that patients often have a greater MVV during office uroflowmetry than that seen in the bladder diary. The purpose of this study is to compare these two non-invasive methods by which MVV can be determined - at the time of uroflowmetry (Q-MVV), or by 24hour bladder diary (BD-MVV). Materials and Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board approved retrospective study of patients evaluated for LUTS who completed a 24hour bladder diary and contemporaneous uroflowmetry. For Q-MVV, the patient was instructed to wait to void until their bladder felt full. Sample means were compared, and Pearson's correlations were calculated between the Q-MVV and BD-MVV data across the total sample, women, and men. Results: Seven hundred seventy one patients with LUTS completed bladder diaries. Of these, 400 patients, 205 women and 195 men, had contemporaneous Q-MVV. Mean BD-MVV was greater than mean Q-MVV. However, Q-MVV was larger in a sizable minority of patients. There was a weak correlation between BD-MVV and Q-MVV. Furthermore, there was a difference ≥50% between Q-MVV and BD-MVV in 165 patients (41%). Conclusions: The data suggest that there is a difference between the two measurement tools, and that the BD-MVV was greater than Q-MVV. For a more reliable assessment of MVV, this study suggests that both Q-MVV and BD-MVV should be assessed and that the larger of the two values is a more reliable assessment of MVV.

Surgical treatment of detrusor underactivity: a short term proof of concept study

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the surgical outcomes of men with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) to those with detrusor underactivity (DU) or acontractile detrusor (DA). Materials and Methods This retrospective, IRB approved study included men who underwent BPO surgery for refractory LUTS or urinary retention. Patients were grouped based on videourodynamic (VUDS) findings: 1) men with BOO, 2) men with DU and 3) men with DA. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGII). Secondary outcome measures included uroflow (Qmax), post-void residual volume (PVR) and the need for clean intermittent catheterization (CIC). Results One hundred and nineteen patients were evaluated: 1) 34 with BOO, 2) 62 with DU and 3) 23 with DA. Subjective success rate (PGII) was highest in the BOO group (97%) and those with DU (98%), while DA patients had a PGII success of 26%, (p<0.0001). After surgery, patients with BOO had the lowest PVR (68.5mL). Fifty-six patients (47%) performed CIC pre-operatively (47% of BOO, 32% of DU and 87% of DA patients). None of the patients in the BOO and DU groups required CIC post operatively compared to16/23 (69%) of patients in the DA group (p<0.0001). Conclusions BPO surgery is a viable treatment option in men with presumed BOO and DU while DA is a poor prognostic sign in men who do not void spontaneously pre-operatively.