RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of spina bifida occulta (SBO) and its relationship with the presence of overactive bladder (OAB) in middle-aged and elderly people in China. METHODS: A cross-sectional community-based survey was carried out at 7 communities in Zhengzhou City, China from December 15, 2013 to June 10, 2014, where residents aged over 40 years were randomly selected to participate. All of the participants underwent lumbosacral radiographic analysis and relevant laboratory tests. A questionnaire including basic information, past medical history and present illness, and the OAB symptom score was filled out by all participants. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used for data analysis with a P-value of 0.05). In men, age, SBO, and constipation were risk factors for OAB (P0.05). In women, age, SBO, and HCI were risk factors for OAB (P0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SBO is high and it is related to OAB in middle-aged and elderly people in China.
Asunto(s)
Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pueblo Asiatico , Índice de Masa Corporal , Infarto Cerebral , China , Estreñimiento , Diabetes Mellitus , Enuresis , Hiperplasia , Modelos Logísticos , Prevalencia , Próstata , Factores de Riesgo , Espina Bífida Oculta , Disrafia Espinal , Estadística como Asunto , Vejiga Urinaria HiperactivaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Hiperplasia Prostática , Estudios Retrospectivos , Obstrucción del Cuello de la Vejiga Urinaria , Diagnóstico , Orina , FisiologíaRESUMEN
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.