Urology
Volume 64, Issue 2 , Pages 302-305, August 2004

Can the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate be predicted preoperatively?

  • E.Arzu Kanik

      Affiliations

    • Department ofBiostatistics, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: E. Arzu Kanik, Ph.D., Department of Biostatistics, University of Mersin School of Medicine, Mersin 33169, Turkey
  • ,
  • Erim Erdem

      Affiliations

    • Department ofUrology, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
  • ,
  • Deniz Abidinoglu

      Affiliations

    • Department ofUrology, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
  • ,
  • Deniz Acar

      Affiliations

    • Department ofUrology, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
  • ,
  • Erdem Akbay

      Affiliations

    • Department ofUrology, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
  • ,
  • Ercument Ulusoy

      Affiliations

    • Department ofUrology, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey

Received 28 January 2004; accepted 22 March 2004.

Abstract 

Objectives

To establish a formula for predicting the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate using noninvasive parameters of preoperative evaluation.

Methods

The data of 54 men with a mean age of 57 years (range 43 to 78) were retrospectively analyzed. The International Prostate Symptom Score, quality-of-life score of the International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire, maximal flow rate (Qmax) recorded during uroflowmetry, age, prostate volume calculated by transrectal ultrasonography, postvoid residual urine volume, and results of pressure-flow studies were evaluated to find a formula that would predict the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate. The patients were evaluated by uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine volume determination, and International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire at 3 months postoperatively. Four different success criteria were investigated with the calculated equations.

Results

According to the discriminant analysis, two new scores were calculated as S1 = (0.169 × age) − (0.0075 × Qmax) and S2 = (0.168 × age) − (0.095 × Qmax) − (0.007 × detrusor pressure at Qmax). For the four success criteria, the optimal cutoff, obtained from the receiver operating characteristic curves of S1 and S2, was 8.83 and 9.21, respectively. A statistically significant difference was not found between S1 and S2. The S1 formula had a sensitivity between 71.8% and 85.2%, specificity between 71.4% and 86.7%, and positive predictive value between 72.2% and 92.9% for the four different criteria using two simple variables (Qmax of uroflowmetry and age).

Conclusions

Because urodynamic parameters did not add benefit to the formula consisting of age and Qmax of uroflowmetry with considerable sensitivity and specificity, performing urodynamic studies might not be useful for predicting the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0090-4295(04)00407-8

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.035

Urology
Volume 64, Issue 2 , Pages 302-305, August 2004