Manual versus computer methods for diagnosing obstruction from pressure-flow tracings in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE

We compared manual versus computer analysis of pressure-flow tracings for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 105 patients with a clinical diagnosis of prostate enlargement and lower urinary tract symptoms was included in the study irrespective of free flow rates. Pressure-flow studies were performed in duplicate and tracings were evaluated by 2 independent investigators blinded to patients status. Manual reading of urodynamic printouts and fully computerized analysis using CLIM software were done. All urodynamic parameters relevant to the diagnosis of outlet obstruction were compared using the Abrams-Griffiths and Schäfer nomograms. Group specific urethral resistance factors were also compared.

RESULTS

There was good correlation between manual and computer derived values of maximum flow (r = 0.9874, p < or = 0.0001), detrusor pressure at maximum flow (r = 0.9943, p < or = 0.0001), minimum detrusor pressure during voiding (r = 0.8816, p < or = 0.0001) and group specific urethral resistance factor (r = 0.9917, p < or = 0.0001). The diagnosis of outlet obstruction according to the group specific urethral resistance factor, and the Abrams-Griffiths and Schäfer nomograms was highly consistent using the manual and computerized approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual analysis of pressure-flow tracings generated by urodynamic equipment and digital data obtained by CLIM software appeared to be highly consistent and equally reliable for diagnosing and grading outlet obstruction.