Pressure-flow studies in the diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction: a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To compare suprapubic and transurethral methods of measuring intravesical pressure in a group of men undergoing investigation for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), to identify which urodynamic variables are affected by the presence of an urethral catheter during the voiding phase, and consequently whether there is any change in the grading of bladder outflow obstruction (BOO) using the commonly recognised grading systems.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-five men with LUTS underwent both suprapubic and transurethral pressure-flow studies during a single session. Standard pressure flow variables were measured in all patients with both methods, enabling calculation of obstruction using the commonly used grading systems, i.e. the Abrams-Griffith number, linear passive urethral resistance ratio (LPURR) and urethral resistance algorithm (URA).

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between the methods in the mean values of maximum flow rate and the detrusor pressure at that maximum: 60% of men were in the same LPURR class with either method. Using the transurethral method, 26% of patients increased the LPURR class by one and 6% by two classes. Using the Abrams-Griffiths nomogram, 17% moved from a classification of equivocal to obstructed and 3% from unobstructed to equivocal. Using the criterion of a value of URA > 29, 57% were obstructed using the suprapubic and 74% using the transurethral method.

CONCLUSION

According to the method used, there were differences in the classification of obstruction between the suprapubic and transurethral routes; transurethral studies tended to indicate greater obstruction. The interpretation of urodynamic studies should take into account the technique used and where the route is transurethral, the smallest catheter available should be used.