中华泌尿外科杂志
中華泌尿外科雜誌
중화비뇨외과잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
2009年
2期
120-123
,共4页
何有华%吴道珠%余凯远%虞海锋%陈映鹤%竺海波%张磊%陈志勇%杨世坤%饶大庞
何有華%吳道珠%餘凱遠%虞海鋒%陳映鶴%竺海波%張磊%陳誌勇%楊世坤%饒大龐
하유화%오도주%여개원%우해봉%진영학%축해파%장뢰%진지용%양세곤%요대방
良性前列腺增生%超声检查%梗阻
良性前列腺增生%超聲檢查%梗阻
량성전렬선증생%초성검사%경조
Benign prostatic hyperplasia%Ultrasonography%Obstruction
目的 探讨超声测量膀胱内前列腺突入程度(IPP)在判断良性前列腺梗阻(BPO)中的临床应用价值. 方法 良性前列腺增生患者109例,经尿动力学检查诊断无前列腺梗阻25例、可疑梗阻15例、梗阻69例.采用经腹超声测量IPP,比较3组患者的IPP变化,统计学比较分析IPP与尿动力学检测指标的相关性. 结果无梗阻组、可疑梗阻组及梗阻组患者的IPP分别为(2.7±1.2)、(2.9±1.4)和(15.4±6.5)mm,无梗阻、可疑梗阻组与梗阻组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).IPP与尿流开始时逼尿肌压、最大尿流率时逼尿肌压、尿流结束时逼尿肌压、最大尿流率及A-G数均相关,r分别为0.628、0.714、0.591、-0.450及0.729(P<0.01).以IPP≥10 mm为BPO判断标准,其敏感性为89.9%、特异性为97.5%、阳性预测值为98.4%、阴性预测值为84.8%,约登指数为0.87. 结论 经腹超声测量IPP操作简便、无痛苦,判断BPO准确,可作为尿动力学诊断BPO的补充方法.
目的 探討超聲測量膀胱內前列腺突入程度(IPP)在判斷良性前列腺梗阻(BPO)中的臨床應用價值. 方法 良性前列腺增生患者109例,經尿動力學檢查診斷無前列腺梗阻25例、可疑梗阻15例、梗阻69例.採用經腹超聲測量IPP,比較3組患者的IPP變化,統計學比較分析IPP與尿動力學檢測指標的相關性. 結果無梗阻組、可疑梗阻組及梗阻組患者的IPP分彆為(2.7±1.2)、(2.9±1.4)和(15.4±6.5)mm,無梗阻、可疑梗阻組與梗阻組間差異有統計學意義(P<0.01).IPP與尿流開始時逼尿肌壓、最大尿流率時逼尿肌壓、尿流結束時逼尿肌壓、最大尿流率及A-G數均相關,r分彆為0.628、0.714、0.591、-0.450及0.729(P<0.01).以IPP≥10 mm為BPO判斷標準,其敏感性為89.9%、特異性為97.5%、暘性預測值為98.4%、陰性預測值為84.8%,約登指數為0.87. 結論 經腹超聲測量IPP操作簡便、無痛苦,判斷BPO準確,可作為尿動力學診斷BPO的補充方法.
목적 탐토초성측량방광내전렬선돌입정도(IPP)재판단량성전렬선경조(BPO)중적림상응용개치. 방법 량성전렬선증생환자109례,경뇨동역학검사진단무전렬선경조25례、가의경조15례、경조69례.채용경복초성측량IPP,비교3조환자적IPP변화,통계학비교분석IPP여뇨동역학검측지표적상관성. 결과무경조조、가의경조조급경조조환자적IPP분별위(2.7±1.2)、(2.9±1.4)화(15.4±6.5)mm,무경조、가의경조조여경조조간차이유통계학의의(P<0.01).IPP여뇨류개시시핍뇨기압、최대뇨류솔시핍뇨기압、뇨류결속시핍뇨기압、최대뇨류솔급A-G수균상관,r분별위0.628、0.714、0.591、-0.450급0.729(P<0.01).이IPP≥10 mm위BPO판단표준,기민감성위89.9%、특이성위97.5%、양성예측치위98.4%、음성예측치위84.8%,약등지수위0.87. 결론 경복초성측량IPP조작간편、무통고,판단BPO준학,가작위뇨동역학진단BPO적보충방법.
Objective To assess the clinical value of intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) measured by transabdominal uhrasonography in judgement of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Methods According to pressure-flow study, 109 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia were di-vided into 3 groups (non-obstruction, equivocal obstruction and obstruction). IPP was measured by transabdominal ultrasonography in all patients. The difference of IPP between different groups was studied and the correlation between IPP and the parameters reflecting BPO was analyzed. Results IPP value of the non-obstruction group, equivocal obstruction group and obstruction group was 2.7 ±1.2 mm, 2.9±1.4 mm and 15.4±6.5 mm. There was significant difference in IPP between the non-obstruction group, equivocal obstruction group and obstruction group (P<0.01). IPP was correlated with the parameters including Pdet. Qbeg, Pdet. Qmax, Pdet. Qend, Qmax and A-G number, Spearman's ratio was 0. 628, 0. 714, 0. 591, -0. 450 and 0. 729(P<0.01), respectively. The sensi-tivity and specificity of judging BPO were 89.9% and 97.5% if the cut-off was IPP≥10 mm. Con-clasion IPP measured by transabdominal ultrasonography could be a convenient and accurate method in diagnosis of BPO.
