RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Hiperplasia Prostática , Estudos Retrospectivos , Obstrução do Colo da Bexiga Urinária , Diagnóstico , Urina , FisiologiaRESUMO
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.
RESUMO
For studying the expression and distribution of angiotensinogen (AGT), the C-teminus of rat AGT gene was expressed in E.coli. Rabbits were immunized with expressed AGT protein and sera from different rabbits were raised. ELISA showed a high titre (1:25600) of the antiserum. With the antiserum, Western blotting recognized not only the prokaryotic expressed AGT, but also the endogenous AGT protein in liver tissue of both rats and humans. Using this antiserum, immunohistochemistry showed the expression of AGT protein in islet cells of human pancreas as well as in epithelium of human bile duct. These results suggest that the prokaryotic expressed AGT protein is an effective immunogen for the preparation of anti-AGT antiserum. Our present work provides an important tool for study of the pathophysiological role of AGT as well as local renin-angiotensin system.