Figures
Abstract
Purpose
To investigate the diagnostic value of urodynamic bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in the selection of patients for transurethral surgery of the prostate.
Materials and methods
We systematically searched online PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1989 to June 2014.
Results
A total of 19 articles met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The eligible studies included a total of 2321 patients with a median number of 92 patients per study (range: 12–437). Of the 19 studies, 15 conducted conventional transurethral prostatectomy (TURP), and 7 used other or multiple modalities. In urodynamic bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) positive patients, the pooled mean difference (MD) was significant for better improvement of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (pooled MD, 3.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72–5.24; p < 0.01; studies, 16; participants, 1726), quality of life score (QoL) (pooled MD, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.14–1.02; p = 0.010; studies, 9; participants, 1052), maximal flow rate (Qmax) (pooled MD, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.17–5.54; p < 0.01; studies, 17; participants, 1852), and post-void residual volume (PVR) (pooled MD, 32.46; 95% CI, 23.34–41.58; p < 0.01; studies, 10; participants, 1219) compared with that in non-BOO patients. Some comparisons showed between-study heterogeneity despite the strict selection criteria of the included studies. However, there was no clear evidence of publication bias in this meta-analysis.
Citation: Kim M, Jeong CW, Oh S-J (2017) Diagnostic value of urodynamic bladder outlet obstruction to select patients for transurethral surgery of the prostate: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0172590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172590
Editor: Robert Hurst, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, UNITED STATES
Received: September 19, 2016; Accepted: February 7, 2017; Published: February 27, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was supported by grant no 23-2015-0050 from Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Traditionally, the primary goal of treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has been to lessen the bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by prostatic enlargement[1,2]. Surgery is the most invasive option for BPH treatment which can cause irreversible complications[3]. To ensure a better outcome, proper indicators for surgical intervention should be selected. The most recent international treatment guidelines commonly recommend that a surgical intervention should be considered in BPH patients with failure to treatment with oral medications or with complicated LUTS[1,2].
The mechanism for surgery is based on the classic bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) model. Enlarged prostate tissue causes obstruction and increases the urethral resistance to flow, and therefore requires higher intravesical pressure to void[2]. The urodynamic study (UDS) is the only gold standard for the diagnosis of BOO[4]; however, invasiveness, cost, and morbidity of UDS limit its clinical use[5]. In this regard, most guidelines recommend UDS for male LUTS evaluation only in specific situations such as, prior to surgery, previous unsuccessful treatment, functional cystometric capacity < 150mL, post-void residual urine (PVR) > 300mL, patient too young (< 50 years) or too old (> 80 years) for surgery[1], or maximal flow rate (Qmax) > 10mL/s (relative BOO)[2]. However, most of those recommendations are supported by very low level of evidences (LEs) (all LE = 3)[1]. To our knowledge, there have been no randomized studies regarding the usefulness of UDS for guiding clinical application in male LUTS. There are no published randomized controlled trials in men with LUTS that compare the standard investigations such as symptom score or uroflowmetry (UFM) with UDS[1]. Moreover, the utility of performing UDS before transurethral surgery has rarely been studied in a systemic fashion.
Because reports on the diagnostic value of urodynamic BOO for LUTS in men are few, a combination of these data to reach a reasonable conclusion is necessary. The objective of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature investigating the diagnostic value of urodynamic BOO in the selection of patients for transurethral surgery of the prostate and to provide a higher LE for guiding practical use of UDS in BPH patients.
Materials and methods
Search strategy for relevant studies
The whole process for this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the study protocol approved by all authors and followed the up-dated versions of MOOSE and PRISMA recommendations (S1 and S2 Checklists) [6,7]. We systematically searched online PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database up to June 2014. Our overall search strategies included terms for UDS (urodynamic, cystometry, and pressure flow study), BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia, benign prostatic obstruction, and male LUTS), and transurethral surgery (transurethral resection, transurethral incision, vaporization, ablation, and enucleation). Detailed queries for search strategy are presented in S1 Table. Manual search of relevant studies were also performed referring to review articles or original research articles on similar subjects.
Selection criteria of eligible studies for meta-analysis
The inclusion criteria for our systematic review were as follows: (1) original research articles published in English; (2) studies that included patients with BPH alone; (3) studies that included subjects who underwent transurethral surgery for BPH; (4) studies that included cases preoperatively sub-grouped by the urodynamic criteria of BOO; (5) studies in which outcome parameters were objectively described using standard investigation tools such as the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or UFM parameters; (6) studies that investigated the association between the urodynamic BOO and improvement of treatment outcome; (7) studies with a definite sample size; and (8) studies that had standard deviation (SD), confidence interval (CI), or other distributional information of outcome parameters. When duplication of patient data was suspected, the most recently published or most informative single article was selected. If the population of the study underwent two or more surgical procedures[8,9], data were processed separately according to the type of surgery. Due to the unavailability of randomized studies, all non-randomized and retrospective studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the study could not satisfy the aforementioned inclusion criteria; (2) review articles or letters; (3) laboratory studies such as studies on ex-vivo and animal models; and (4) studies with data that were insufficient to estimate the mean and SD of improved outcomes.
To minimize the bias, abstract screening and full text assessment for eligibility were independently performed by all three authors (MK, CWJ, and SJO). All screened abstracts were classified into three categories: (1) not-eligible, (2) unclear, and (3) potentially-eligible. The full texts of “potentially-eligible” and “unclear” studies were obtained and assessed for eligibility. All disagreements among three reviewers were resolved by a consensus meeting.
Data extraction and quality assessments
The extracted data elements were as follows: (1) overall characteristics of eligible studies, which included the name of first author, publication year, country, recruitment period, study design, population size, type of surgical intervention, urodynamic standards and cut-off value to diagnosis BOO, and quality score for each study; (2) patient characteristics, which included analyzed-population size, mean or median age, time of treatment outcome evaluation, and compared-outcome parameters; and (3) mean improvement of IPSS (ΔIPSS), IPSS-quality of life score (QoL) (ΔIPSS-QoL), Qmax (ΔQmax), and PVR (ΔPVR) of each subgroup with their SD, after the surgical interventions. Study quality was assessed independently by all three authors using the MINORS (score range: 0–24)[10]. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion.
Statistical analysis
Primary analysis.
The improvements of the main outcome parameters (ΔIPSS, ΔIPSS-QoL, ΔQmax, and ΔPVR) were compared between the preoperative urodynamic BOO positive and negative subgroups. Owing to the continuous parametric feature of outcomes, the pooled mean difference (MD) was used to summarize each outcome parameters across the eligible studies. A random-effect model was used to obtain the pooled MDs and their 95% CIs, because we hypothesized that the selected eligible studies contains inter-study heterogeneities (e.g., surgical modalities, period of postoperative outcome evaluation, and urodynamic cut-off values) as well as within-study heterogeneities (e.g., sampling variation). Mean value and SD of outcome parameters were needed for data integration. For each study, these values were estimated based on the data provided in the publications using previously suggested techniques[11,12]. An observed pooled MD > 0 indicated better improvement of BOO positive group compared to BOO negative, and would be considered statistically significant if the 95% CI did not overlap the pooled MD value of zero, with p < 0.05.
Subgroup (sensitivity) analysis.
Subsequently, we assessed subgroup analysis in patients who underwent conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to evaluate the effect of type of surgery performed. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were also performed according to the two dominant criteria for BOO diagnosis (BOO index [BOOI] > 40[13], and linear passive urethral resistance relation [lin PURR] grade ≥ 2, 3, or 4[14]) to evaluate the effects of diagnostic criteria.
Assessment of heterogeneity.
Heterogeneity was assessed using the heterogeneity х2 test (Cochran’s Q-test), a p value of > 0.05 indicated the absence of significant heterogeneity[15]. The I2 statistic (Higgin H-test) was performed to visualize degree of heterogeneity[16].
Publication bias.
Possibilities of publication bias were assessed using Funnel plots (Harbord test)[17].
Results
Outcome of the selection process
A flow chart of the whole study selection process is shown in Fig 1. Our search strategy identified 3875 articles (PubMed, 1445 articles; Embase, 2137 articles; Cochrane Library database, 293 articles). Additionally, 133 articles were found by manual searching. After duplicates were removed, 2611 abstracts were independently screened by three authors. After abstract screening, 223 articles were entered to full text assessment for eligibility. After careful review of full articles, 204 were excluded for the following reasons: 23 studies were written in languages other than English, seven were review articles, one was a letter to editor, the full text of the manuscript could not obtained in 15 articles, 63 were out of scope, 34 covered related subjects but could not satisfy the inclusion criteria regarding methodology, 52 lacked eligible data, and nine studies were excluded due to the duplication of the study population. Eventually 19 studies were selected as eligible for the data synthesis[8,9,18–39].
Characteristics of included studies
Tables 1 and 2 show the general characteristics of eligible studies. The 19 eligible studies included a total of 2321 patients, with a median number of 92 patients per study (range: 12–487). None of the selected studies was a randomized prospective study. Seven of the 19 included studies were non-randomized prospective studies, and the remaining studies had a retrospective design. Patients received TURP in 15 of 19 studies [18,19,24–36], transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) in one study[20], interstitial laser coagulation (ILC) in one study[23], and multiple intervention modalities in two studies[8,9]. The definition of urodynamic BOO varied among studies. The urodynamic BOO was defined as BOOI > 40 cmH2O in nine studies[25,27,28,31,33,34,36,38,39], Lin PURR grade ≥ 4 in four studies[8,20,23,30], Lin PURR grade ≥ 3 in four studies[24,26,29,35], Lin PURR grade ≥ 2 in one study[32], and other definitions in four studies[9,18,19,37]. The median quality score measured by MINORS recorded as 16 (range: 14–18). There was no significant correlation between population size and quality scores (p = 0.231, by Spearman’s correlation analysis) (Table 1). Median or mean ages of study populations were as shown in Table 2. Time of treatment outcome evaluation varied (range: 1.5–144 months). Mean and SD values of ΔIPSS, ΔIPSS-QoL, ΔQmax, and ΔPVR could not be obtained in all studies (Table 2). If the mean and SD values could not be obtained, these values were estimated using other representative and distributional values. Details of the process applied are shown in the S2 Table.
Comparison of BOO positive versus BOO negative patients
Forest plots of the meta-analyses comparing the treatment outcome between urodynamic BOO positive and negative patients are shown in Fig 2. Each figure represents pooled MD and the respective 95% CI of ΔIPSS (Fig 2A), ΔIPSS-QoL (Fig 2B), ΔQmax (Fig 2C), and ΔPVR (Fig 2D). In the comparisons of BOO positive and negative patients, all pooled MDs were significantly greater than zero: ΔIPSS (pooled MD, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.72–5.24; p < 0.01; studies, 16; participants, 1726; Fig 2A), ΔIPSS-QoL (pooled MD, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.14–1.02; p = 0.01; studies, 9; participants, 1052; Fig 2B), ΔQmax (pooled MD, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.17–5.54; p < 0.01; studies, 17; participants, 1852; Fig 2C), and ΔPVR (pooled MD, 32.46; 95% CI, 23.34–41.58; p < 0.01; studies, 10; participants, 1219; Fig 2D). This means that BOO positive patients have better surgical outcomes in all parameters compared to BOO negative patients.
(A) Improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), (B) Improvement of quality of life score (QoL), (C) Improvement of maximal flow rate on uroflowmetry (Qmax), (D) Improvement of post-void residual volume (PVR).
Subgroup analysis
Subsequently, the subgroup analyses using patients who underwent TURP were performed (Table 3). In patients with TURP, the MDs were also statistically significant for all outcome parameters including ΔIPSS (pooled MD, 4.30; 95% CI, 2.25–6.35; p < 0.01), ΔIPSS-QoL (pooled MD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.11–1.07; p = 0.02), ΔQmax (pooled MD, 4.57; 95% CI, 2.47–6.67; p < 0.01), and ΔPVR (pooled MD, 33.30; 95% CI, 24.38–42.23; p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses of BOO comparisons by the two dominant criteria for BOO diagnosis (BOOI > 40 cmH2O, and lin PURR grade ≥ 2, 3, or 4) were also performed (Table 4). Except for the ΔIPSS-QoL (pooled MD, 0.21; p = 0.33; 95% CI, -0.21–0.64) of the BOOI subgroup, all pooled MDs of the outcome parameters were significantly greater than zero.
Assessment of heterogeneity and publication bias
Despite our attempt to limit between-study heterogeneity through strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, heterogeneity between treatment outcomes still remained (heterogeneity х2 test: p < 0.05 in ΔIPSS, ΔIPSS-QoL, and ΔQmax comparisons, I2 range: 12–88%; Fig 2). However, there was no clear evidence of funnel plot asymmetry for outcomes (Fig 3). Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no clear evidence of publication bias.
(A) Improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), (B) Improvement of quality of life score (QoL), (C) Improvement of maximal flow rate on uroflowmetry (Qmax), (D) Improvement of post-void residual volume (PVR).
Discussion
Urodynamic BOO and surgical outcome
There have been insufficient evidences on which to base clear statements about ‘the right treatment’, despite a large number of studies published over several decades[40]. The preoperative evaluation of BPH patients provided clear examples of practice based on poor evidence. Recent international guidelines recommend surgical intervention and the decision to perform surgery primarily relies on the physician who should decide the best initial treatment on a case-by-case basis according to clinical conditions[1,2]. Poor correlation between the degree of urodynamic BOO and degree of patient symptoms is suggested by some researchers[41,42]. Those findings have indirectly supported the fact that UDS is not particularly useful as a preoperative evaluation in transurethral surgery for BPH.
However, if the basic principles of transurethral surgery are based on the classic BOO model, it can be expected that the degree of obstruction affects the treatment outcome. However, there has been not much evidence supporting this hypothesis[1]. The results of the current study provide a higher LE, which confirms the utility of performing UDS before transurethral surgery for BPH treatment.
During our survey of literature, we encountered various definitions of the urodynamic findings, especially for “BOO”. BOO is basically defined as methods of analyzing the pressure-flow plots. One of the major aims of pressure-flow study is to provide an objective diagnosis on weather the urethral resistance to flow is abnormally elevated[43]. For that purpose, methods have been developed to quantify pressure-flow plots in terms of one or more numerical parameters[13,14,44–49]. However, the optimal method for BOO diagnosis has not been confirmed[43]. Nevertheless, it seems that there is some degree of reliability on inter-test agreement due to the underlying similarity for diagnosing BOO[50]. Moreover, in our current study, subgroup analyses using the two dominant definition criteria demonstrated consistency except for the ΔIPSS-QoL of BOOI subgroup (Table 4).
Limitations and strengths of the current study
Our study presents some limitations. First, none of the studies included in the current meta-analysis specified a prospective design. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized study regarding the usefulness of UDS for guiding clinical management in male LUTS[1]. This may be due to the complexity of designing prospective study. It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions when studies are not conducted prospectively. Thus, the results of the present study are important because, they can provide a higher LE regarding the diagnostic value of preoperative UDS in male LUTS patients who are being considered for transurethral surgery. The results of our study also can be an important reference for designing of further prospective studies in the future.
Second, due to the unavailability of mean and variance (or SD) data in some studies, those values are estimated using other presented distributional parameters for the outcome synthesis (see S2 Table). This can lead to some errors used in the estimation processes. However, the data imputation techniques used in this study were shown to have a low possibility of statistical errors in a previous study[51]. For the clarification of these points, accumulation of more evidence is needed.
Third, in our current meta-analysis, there was some heterogeneity in the included studies (Fig 2; especially in ΔIPSS, ΔIPSS-QoL, and ΔQmax comparisons). Heterogeneity can be caused by numerous factors such as inclusion criteria, type of surgery, sample size, period of postoperative outcome evaluation, urodynamic cut-off values, and adjustment for other co-factors. It is also very difficult to explain inter-study heterogeneity, due to the variability in clinical characteristics across patients within studies. To lessen the heterogeneity related bias, we adopted the random-effect model for data synthesis, which is known to be to draw more conservative results[12]. Moreover, the direct evidence due to publication bias was not shown (Fig 3).
Lastly, the BOO negative group also can experience symptom improvements from BPH surgery, although the degree of improvement in the BOO negative group is significantly less than that in the BOO positive group (Fig 2). Therefore, urodynamic BOO (BOOI > 40 or lin PURR grade ≥ 2, 3, or 4 in this study) might not be an absolute indication for surgical treatment in patients with PBH. This indicates that urodynamic BOO positive patients with BPH who are considering surgery would have better treatment outcomes than BOO negative patients. However, being BOO positive (or negative) is not an absolute indication that the patient should (or should not) receive the surgery.
Despite some limitations, the findings from the present study suggest that preoperative urodynamic BOO has a diagnostic role in predicting treatment outcomes of surgery in male LUTS patients. The strengths of the current study are as follows: (1) broad, unbiased search of the literature; (2) strict criteria for study selection; and (3) application of standardized methods for systematic review[6,7]. Moreover, due to the relatively large number of eligible studies, subgroup (sensitivity) analysis could be performed according to the type of surgery (TURP) and the definition of BOO. Our subgroup analysis demonstrated consistency with the main results (Tables 3 and 4).
Conclusions
In conclusion, our meta-analysis results demonstrated significant association between preoperative BOO positive patients and better improvement of surgical outcome parameters including IPSS, IPSS-QoL, Qmax, and PVR. On these grounds, preoperative urodynamic BOO may have a diagnostic role in predicting treatment outcomes after surgery in male LUTS patients. However, the diagnostic value of UDS for preoperative evaluation also needs to be confirmed in prospective controlled trials before any definitive conclusions can be made.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. The PRISMA checklist of this study (page 1).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172590.s001
(TIF)
S2 Checklist. The PRISMA checklist of this study (page 2).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172590.s002
(TIF)
S1 Table. Detailed query settings for search strategy.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172590.s003
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Related matters regarding processing the outcome parameters for data synthesis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172590.s004
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by grant no 23-2015-0050 from Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund. The authors are indebted to Jung-Yun Lee (E-mail: jungyunlee@yuhs.ac), assistant professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yonsei University College of Medicine for his pro bono technical advice on our first meta-analysis.
Author Contributions
- Conceptualization: SJO.
- Data curation: SJO MK CWJ.
- Formal analysis: MK SJO.
- Funding acquisition: SJO.
- Investigation: SJO MK CWJ.
- Methodology: SJO MK CWJ.
- Project administration: SJO.
- Resources: SJO MK CWJ.
- Supervision: SJO.
- Validation: SJO MK CWJ.
- Visualization: MK SJO.
- Writing – original draft: MK SJO.
- Writing – review & editing: SJO CWJ.
References
- 1.
Gravas S, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Drake M, Gratzke C, Madersbacher S, et al. EAU guidelines on the management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). available at: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Non-Neurogenic%20Male%20LUTS_(2705).pdf; 2014.
- 2.
McVary K, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC, Donnell RF, et al. American Urological Association guideline: Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). avaliable at: http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Benign-Prostatic-Hyperplasia.pdf; 2010.
- 3. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Seitz M, Schlenker B, Hermanek P, et al. (2008) Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: A prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 180:246–249. pmid:18499179
- 4. Abrams P. (1995) Objective evaluation of bladder outlet obstruction. Br J Urol 76:11–15. pmid:7544210
- 5. Porru D, Madeddu G, Campus G, Montisci I, Scarpa RM, Usai E. (1999) Evaluation of morbidity of multi-channel pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 18:647–652. pmid:10529713
- 6. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA 283:2008–2012. pmid:10789670
- 7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269. pmid:19622511
- 8. Witjes WP, Robertson A, Rosier PF, Neal DE, Debruyne FM, De la Rosette JJMCH. (1997) Urodynamic and clinical effects of noninvasive and minimally invasive treatments in elderly men with lower urinary tract symptoms stratified according to the grade of obstruction. Urology 50:55–61. pmid:9218019
- 9. Vesely S, Knutson T, Damber JE, Dicuio M, Dahlstrand C. (2006) TURP and low-energy TUMT treatment in men with LUTS suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction selected by means of pressure-flow studies: 8-year follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn 25:770–775. pmid:17016845
- 10. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716. pmid:12956787
- 11. Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13. pmid:15840177
- 12.
Kim SY, Park JE, Seo HJ, Lee YJ, Jang BH, Son HJ, et al. (2011) NECA's guideline for undertaking systemic reviews and meta-analyses for intervention. Seoul, Korea: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA).
- 13. Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ. (1979) The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. Br J Urol 51:129–134. pmid:465971
- 14. Schafer W. (1990) Principles and clinical application of advanced urodynamic analysis of voiding function. Urol Clin North Am 17:553–566. pmid:1695782
- 15. DerSimonian R, Laird N. (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188. pmid:3802833
- 16. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 327:557–560.
- 17. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JAC. (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25:3443–3457. pmid:16345038
- 18. Schäfer W, Rubben H, Noppeney R, Deutz FJ. (1989) Obstructed and unobstructed prostatic obstruction. A plea for urodynamic objectivation of bladder outflow obstruction in benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 6:198–203.
- 19. Gormley EA, Griffiths DJ, McCracken PN, Harrison GM, McPhee MS. (1993) Effect of transurethral resection of the prostate on detrusor instability and urge incontinence in elderly males. Neurourol Urodyn 12:445–453. pmid:7504554
- 20. De la Rosette JJMCH, De Wildt MJAM, Hofner K, Carter SSC, Debruyne FMJ, Tubaro A. (1996) Pressure-flow study analyses in patients treated with high energy thermotherapy. J Urol 156:1428–1433. pmid:8808890
- 21. Ignjatovic I. (1997) Prediction of unfavourable symptomatic outcome of transurethral prostatectomy in patients with the relative indication for operation. Int Urol Nephrol 29:653–660. pmid:9477363
- 22. Javlé P, Jenkins SA, Machin DG, Parsons KF. (1998) Grading of benign prostatic obstruction can predict the outcome of transurethral prostatectomy. J Urol 160:1713–1717. pmid:9783938
- 23. Dӕhlin L, Hedlund H. (1999) Interstitial laser coagulation in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms from benign prostatic obstruction: treatment under sedoanalgesia with pressure-flow evaluation. BJU Int 84:628–636. pmid:10510106
- 24. Gotoh M, Yoshikawa Y, Kondo AS, Kondo A, Ono Y, Ohshima S. (1999) Prognostic value of pressure-flow study in surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. World J Urol 17:274–278. pmid:10552143
- 25. Machino R, Kakizaki H, Ameda K, Shibata T, Tanaka H, Matsuura S, et al. (2002) Detrusor instability with equivocal obstruction: A predictor of unfavorable symptomatic outcomes after transurethral prostatectomy. Neurourol Urodyn 21:444–449. pmid:12232878
- 26. Porru D, Jallous H, Cavalli V, Sallusto F, Rovereto B. (2002) Prognostic value of a combination of IPSS, flow rate and residual urine volume compared to pressure-flow studies in the preoperative evaluation of symptomatic BPH. Eur Urol 41:246–249. pmid:12180223
- 27. Hakenberg OW, Pinnock CB, Marshall VR. (2003) Preoperative urodynamic and symptom evaluation of patients undergoing transurethral prostatectomy: analysis of variables relevant for outcome. BJU Int 91:375–379. pmid:12603418
- 28. Van Venrooij GE, van Melick HH, Boon TA. (2003) Comparison of outcomes of transurethral prostate resection in urodynamically obstructed versus selected urodynamically unobstructed or equivocal men. Urology 62:672–676. pmid:14550441
- 29. Seki N, Kai N, Seguchi H, Takei M, Yamaguchi A, Naito S. (2006) Predictives regarding outcome after transurethral resection for prostatic adenoma associated with detrusor underactivity. Urology 67:306–310. pmid:16461081
- 30. Tanaka Y, Masumori N, Itoh N, Furuya S, Ogura H, Tsukamoto T. (2006) Is the short-term outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate affected by preoperative degree of bladder outlet obstruction, status of detrusor contractility or detrusor overactivity? Int J Urol 13:1398–1404. pmid:17083391
- 31. Han DH, Jeong YS, Choo MS, Lee KS. (2008) The efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate in the patients with weak bladder contractility index. Urology 71:657–661. pmid:18313105
- 32. Masumori N, Furuya R, Tanaka Y, Furuya S, Ogura H, Tsukamoto T. (2010) The 12-year symptomatic outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction compared to the urodynamic findings before surgery. BJU Int 105:1429–1433. pmid:19863522
- 33. Oh MM, Kim JW, Kim JJ, Moon DG. (2012) Is there a correlation between the outcome of transurethral resection of prostate and preoperative degree of bladder outlet obstruction? Asian J Androl 14:556–559. pmid:22157984
- 34. Min DS, Cho HJ, Kang JY, Yoo TK, Cho JM. (2013) Effect of transurethral resection of the prostate based on the degree of obstruction seen in urodynamic study. Korean J Urol 54:840–845. pmid:24363865
- 35. Ignjatovic I. (1997) Prediction of unfavourable symptomatic outcome of transurethral prostatectomy in patients with the relative indication for operation. Int Urol Nephrol 29:653–660. pmid:9477363
- 36. Javlé P, Jenkins SA, Machin DG, Parsons KF. (1998) Grading of benign prostatic obstruction can predict the outcome of transurethral prostatectomy. J Urol 160:1713–1717. pmid:9783938
- 37. Monoski MA, Gonzalez RR, Sandhu JS, Reddy B, Te AE. (2006) Urodynamic predictors of outcomes with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and retention. Urology 68:312–317. pmid:16904443
- 38. Paick JS, Um JM, Kwak C, Kim SW, Ku JH. (2007) Influence of bladder contractility on short-term outcomes of high-power potassium-titanyl-phosphate photoselective vaporization of the prostate. Urology 69:859–863. pmid:17482922
- 39. Cho MC, Kim HS, Lee CJ, Ku JH, Kim SW, Paick JS. (2010) Influence of detrusor overactivity on storage symptoms following potassium-titanyl-phosphate photoselective vaporization of the prostate. Urology 75:1460–1466. pmid:19963247
- 40. Stoevelaar HJ, McDonnell J, Bosch JL, Kahan JP, European Panel on the Appropriate Treatment of BPH. (2001) Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction: how can clinical expertise contribute to rational management? Eur Urol Supple 39:13–19.
- 41. El Din KE, Kiemeney LALM, De Wildt MJAM, Rosier PFWM, Debruyne FMJ, De La Rosette JJMCH. (1996) The correlation between bladder outlet obstruction and lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score. J Urol 156:1020–1025. pmid:8709300
- 42. De la Rosette JJMCH, Witjes WPJ, Schäfer W, Abrams P, Donovan JL, Peters TJ, et al. (1998) Relationships between lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction: Results from the ICS-“BPH” Study. Neurourol Urodyn 17:99–108. pmid:9514142
- 43. Griffiths D, Hofner K, van Mastrigt R, Rollema HJ, Spangberg A, Gleason D. (1997) Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: pressure-flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance, and urethral obstruction. International Continence Society subcommittee on standardization of terminology of pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 16:1–18. pmid:9021786
- 44. Höfner K, Kramer AEJL, Tan HK, Krah H, Jonas U. (1995) CHESS classification of bladder-outflow obstruction. World J Urol 13:59–64. pmid:7539680
- 45. Schäfer W. (1995) Analysis of bladder-outlet function with the linearized passive urethral resistance relation, linPURR, and a disease-specific approach for grading obstruction: from complex to simple. World J Urol 13:47–58. pmid:7773317
- 46. Spångberg A, Teriö H, Ask P, Engberg A, Griffiths D. (1991) Pressure/flow studies preoperatively and postoperatively in patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy: Estimation of the urethral pressure/flow relation and urethral elasticity. Neurourol Urodyn 10:139–167.
- 47. Lim CS, Abrams P. (1995) The Abrams-Griffiths nomogram. World J Urol 13:34–39. pmid:7539679
- 48. Griffiths D, van Mastrigt R, Bosch R. (1989) Quantification of urethral resistance and bladder function during voiding, with special reference to the effects of prostate size reduction on urethral obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn 8:17–27.
- 49. Kranse M, Van Mastrigt R. (1991) The derivation of an obstruction index from a three parameter model fitted to the lowest part of the pressure flow plot. J Urol 145:261.
- 50. Eckhardt MD, van Venrooij GEPM, Boon TA. (2001) Urethral resistance factor (URA) versus Schäfer's obstruction grade and abrams–griffiths (AG) number in the diagnosis of obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn 20:175–185. pmid:11170192
- 51. Furukawa TA, Barbui C, Cipriani A, Brambilla P, Watanabe N. (2006) Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. J Clin Epidemiol 59:7–10. pmid:16360555