Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 58471

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : November | Volume : 16 | Issue : 11 | Page : PC11 - PC14 Full Version

Ideal Timing of Prostate Operation in Chronic Urinary Retention due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia by Serial Urodynamic Study: A Prospective Longitudinal Study


Published: November 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/58873.17172
Kasim Mainoddin Atar, Krishnendu Maiti, Dilip Kumar Pal

1. Postdoctorate Trainee, Department of Urology, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal,India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Urology, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal,India. 3. Professor and Head, Department of Urology, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal,India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Dilip Kumar Pal,
Professor and Head, Department of Urology, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: imteyazahmad777@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Chronic Urinary Retention (CUR) due to prostatomegaly causes impaired detrusor function, secondary to obstruction-related changes in the bladder wall. Urodynamic study is the “gold standard” to determine detrusor function in CUR patients. Traditional management of all CUR patients due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) is temporary catheter drainage of the urinary bladder, so that detrusor impairment may be corrected. There is no consensus regarding the ideal timing of prostate operation in Bladder Outlet Obstruction (BOO) patients presenting with CUR due to BPH.

Aim: To assess the ideal timing of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) in chronic urinary retention patients due to BPH.

Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, longitudinal study of 57 eligible patients with non neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms, who presented with chronic urinary retention due to benign prostatic hyperplasia and attended the Department of Urology, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital (IPGME&RSSKM), Kolkata, West Bengal, India from August 2019 to July 2022. Four serial Urodynamic Studies (UDS) were performed after initial catheterisation in sterile urine culture on the day 5, day 14, day 30, and at 6th week. As per UDS findings, patients were classified into Preserved Detrusor function group (n=18),at peak flow rate (Qmax) {Detrusor Pressure (Pdet) at peak flow rate} >30 cm H2O and Impaired Detrusor function group (n=39), Pdet at Qmax ≤30 cm H2O. Descriptive statistics were performed as means, standard deviations and ranges using Microsoft Excel software. For categorical variables, percentages were used. The Student’s paired-test and Chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: In the present study, mean age of preserved detrusor function group was 56.17 years and impaired detrusor function group was 67.08 years. In preserved detrusor function group (n=18), 83.3% patients had upper urinary tract changes and in impaired detrusor function group (n=39) only 15.4% patients had upper tract changes (p-value <0.05). On the urodynamic study done at 6th week after initial catheterisation, in impaired detrusor function group, n=36 (92.30%) patients had Pdet at Qmax >30 cm H2O and only n=3 (7.7%) patients had Pdet at Qmax ≤30 cm H2O(p-value <0.001).

Conclusion: Urodynamic study is the gold standard to determine detrusor function in chronic urinary retention patients. It is ideal to wait, till six weeks or beyond, for TURP in chronic urinary retention patients due to BPH after initial catheterisation.

Keywords

Bladder outlet obstruction, Catheter, Lower urinary tract symptoms, Transurethral resection of the prostate

Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement, represent one of the most common clinical complaints in older men. As age increases, the prevalence of LUTS increases. LUTS have a major impact on quality of life and are associated with societal costs (1). LUTS can be divided into storage, voiding, postmicturition symptoms, and has traditionally been related to bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), as a result of the prostate which is often caused by Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) resulting in urinary retention (1),(2). Retention can be acute or chronic.

Chronic Urinary Retention (CUR) typically describes a non painful, persistent inability to completely empty the bladder, despite maintaining an ability to urinate, resulting in elevated Post-void Residual (PVR) urine volumes (3),(4). Research studies often use PVR volume greater than 300 mL to diagnose CUR (4),(5). In the initiation phase of bladder outlet obstruction, detrusor muscle undergoes hypertrophy with increased collagen deposition in the stroma of the urinary bladder. This increase in Detrusor Pressure (Pdet) helps to overcome obstruction and to maintain the urine flow. With the time of continued retention, changes occur in vascular supply and neural innervations of the detrusor muscle, leading to reduced detrusor muscle sensitivity and contractility, and thus, leading to detrusor weakness or detrusor failure in Chronic Urinary Retention (CUR) (6),(7). Thus, the traditional management of all CUR patients due to BPH is temporary catheter drainage of the urinary bladder, so that detrusor impairment may be corrected. There is no consensus regarding the ideal timing of prostate operation in bladder outlet obstruction patients presenting with CUR due to BPH. Hence, the present study was conducted with the aim to know the ideal timing of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) in chronic urinary retention patients due to BPH.

Material and Methods

This was a prospective longitudinal study conducted the Department of Urology in a tertiary care hospital, Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research and Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital (IPGME&R SSKM), Kolkata, West Bengal, India from August 2019 to July 2022. Ethical permission for the study was obtained from the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC no. 2022/020). Informed consent was obtained by all subjects when they were enrolled.

Inclusion criteria: Male patients attended to the Urology Outpatient Department, presented with non neurogenic LUTS with chronic urinary retention, having a post-void residual volume of urine >300 mL measured on ultrasonography or >300 mL urine drained on catheterisation due to BPH were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients who refused to give consent, patients with spinal cord injury or cerebrovascular accident or neurological disease, patients with long-term uncontrolled diabetes mellitus or peripheral neuropathy, and patients with continuous urinary drainage through Per Urethral Catheter (PUC)/Suprapubic Catheter (SPC) were excluded from the study. Patients having prostate cancer, patients unsuitable for operative treatment or having urinary tract infection and patients who were not ambulatory or having stricture urethra were excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

The selected patients were evaluated for lower urinary tract symptoms presented with chronic urinary retention, in the form of history taking, clinical examination for palpable urinary bladder, digital rectal examination, basic biochemical tests, serum PSA and urine routine examination, and microscopic examination and culture with appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ultrasonography was done in all cases. Additional tests like Voiding Cystourethrography (VCUG), Intravenous Pyelogram (IVP), Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) were done, if necessary. Uroflowmetry was done twice in each patient and the best one was taken. After obtaining proper informed consent, patients underwent multichannel Urodynamic Study (UDS), according to the recommendations of the International Continence Society (ICS) (2). Sterile urine culture was ensured before the study. After initial catheterisation, the volume of urine drained was recorded. UDS was performed on the 5th day after catheterisation and recorded as the first UDS. As per UDS findings, patients were classified into preserved detrusor function group Pdet at Qmax (detrusor pressure at peak flow rate) >30 cm H2O (n=18) and impaired detrusor function group Pdet at Qmax ≤30 cm H2O (n=39) based on Osman NI et al., and Abarbanel J and Marcus EL, study (7),(8). Patients with CUR would measure in what percentage of patients’ detrusor impairment was seen. A second UDS was done on the 14th day, thereafter, a third UDS on the 30th day, and subsequently a fourth UDS in 6th week. The symptoms and the clinical findings of patients were recorded along with a focused neurological, abdominal, and rectal examination, and this was followed by a detailed serial urodynamic evaluation and enumeration of findings. American Urological Association (AUA) symptom index was taken as a reference guide for the evaluation of symptoms during the initial assessment (9). Intravesical Pressure (Pves), Pdet, uroflowmetry parameters like peak flow rate (Qmax), Post-void Residue (PVR) of urine were recorded on a defined serial UDS report card.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were performed as means, standard deviations, and ranges using Microsoft Excel software. For categorical variables percentages were used. Student’s paired t-test, Chi-square test and IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 27.0 were used for statistical analysis. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 60 patients, who fulfilled inclusion criteria were initially selected for the present study. Out of these patients, three patients were lost to follow-up therefore, the present study included 57 patients. The mean age of preserved detrusor function group was 56.17 years (Range: 53.75 to 58.25 years) and the impaired detrusor function group mean age was 67.08 years (Range: 65 to 68 years) as shown in (Table/Fig 1). In the present study out of 18 patients of preserved detrusor function group, 15 (83.3%) patients had upper tract changes present and in these patients mean Pdet at filling cystometry on 5th day of UDS was 46.4 cm H2O (Range: 44-49 cm H2O) and out of 39 patients of impaired detrusor function group only 6 (15.4%) patients had upper tract changes and 33 patients had normal upper tract as shown in (Table/Fig 2).

In impaired detrusor function group (n=39), mean Pdet at filling cystometry on 5th day of UDS was 12.64 cm H2O (Range: 10-15 cm H2O) which gradually decreases to became 6.74 cm H2O (Range:5-8 cm H2O). In this group on 5th day of UDS, mean Qmax (Peak Flow Rate) was 3.36 mL/sec (Range: 2-5 mL/sec) which gradually increases to became 5.77 mL/sec (Range: 5-7mL/sec). Mean Pdet at Qmax (detrusor pressure at peak flow rate) was 15.13 cm H2O (Range: 13-18 cm H2O) also gradually increases to became 47.49 cm H2O (Range: 48-53 cm H2 O) as shown in (Table/Fig 3).

In the impaired detrusor function group, out of 39 patients, all (n=39) had Pdet at Qmax ≤30 cm H2O on UDS, done at 5th day, 14th day, and 30th day. In this group (n=36), 92.30% patients had Pdet at Qmax >30 cm H2O on UDS done at 6th week indicating detrusor muscle regains their contractile ability and only 3 (7.7%) patients had Pdet at Qmax >30 cm H2O, which shows it remained underactive (p-value<0.001) as shown in (Table/Fig 4).

Discussion

Standard criteria, including the duration and volume of postvoid residual urine,are necessary for diagnosing chronic urinary retention(CUR) (1),(2),(3). Researchers often define CUR as PVR greater than 300 mL (4),(5). Before definitive prostate surgery, there is catheter drainage advised for detrusor impairment correction in CUR patients. No literature clearly says that, in how many CUR patients detrusor impairment occurs and what is the minimum time required for improvement of impaired detrusor function. In the present study out of total 57 patients with chronic urinary retention, 39 patients had impaired detrusor function, and the minimum time required to regain detrusor function to the near normal range was six weeks. A retrospective study was done by Paul HA et al., in which, they divided patients with chronic retention of urine into two main groups normal or high-pressure bladder filling (Pdet ≥25 cm H2O) and lowpressure bladder filling (Pdet <25 cm H2O). In all the patients with low and high-pressure filling, the mean pressure increases 11 cm H2O (range 0-25) and 82 cm H2O (Range: 40-148) respectively; mean bladder capacities 960 mL (470-3000) and 825 mL (380- 3500) and mean residual urine volumes 755 mL (320-2550) and 715 mL (310-3200). Pressure-flow analysis of micturition showed that all patients had outlet obstruction. After prostatectomy, the patients with high-pressure filling achieved good bladder emptying by normal detrusor contraction. The poor results in the patients with low-pressure filling were due to inadequate detrusor contraction, and voiding was accomplished by abdominal straining (6).

The drawbacks of their study, they did TURP in all patients, and data was collected retrospectively. Compare to their study, in the present study, we divided CUR patients in preserved detrusor function group (pdet at Qmax >30 cm H2O) and the impaired detrusor function group (pdet at Qmax ≤30 cm H2O). In the present study, preserved detrusor function group had a mean PVR of 1077.78 mL, the mean Pdet at filling phase was 43.72 cm H2O, and 83.3% of patients had upper tract changes, whereas, the impaired detrusor function group had a mean PVR of 1220.51 mL, mean Pdet at filling phase 12.64 cm H2O, and in this group, only 15.4% patients shows upper tract changes.

Another prospective randomised study done by Ghalayini IF et al., showed the usefulness of clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC) in ensuring the recovery of bladder function in men with CUR. In their study of the 41 patients, 17 (mean age 67 years, range 52-84) were randomised to immediate TURP and 24 (mean age 69 years, range 55-85) to CISC. In both groups, significant improvement in quality of life and international prostate symptom score at six months was seen (p-value<0.001). In the CISC group, there was a significant improvement in voiding and endfilling pressures, indicating recovery of bladder function (p-value <0.001 for each). Of the 41 men, 9 (22%) with voiding pressures of <45 cm H2O had no significant improvement in symptoms or urodynamic variables. Detrusor overactivity was found in 17 (41%) patients, of whom six had upper tract dilatation which resolved after treatment (10). As compared to their study, in the present study, there was significant improvement in detrusor contractility (p-value <0.001) on UDS done at 6th week in impaired detrusor function group which revealed that initial catheterisation helps to recover bladder function.

Retrospective study done by Pal M et al., concluded that initial catheter drainage of urine is an effective mode of temporary management in patients with chronic urinary retention secondary to BPH. They graded bladder function into improved (Pdet at Qmax>40 cm H2O), mild improvement (Pdet at Qmax 20-40 cm H2O) and no improvement (Pdet at Qmax <20 cm H2O) (11). Drawback of their study was they did not mention for how many period initial catheterisation helps to improve bladder function. As compared to their study, in the present study out of 39 patients, 36 (92.30%) patients showed significant bladder function improvement [mean Pdet at Qmax 48.9 cm H2O, range of 48-53 cm H2O (p-value <0.001)] at 6th week after initial catheterisation. If TURP will be done before 6th week, after initial catheterisation as definitive treatment in patients with CUR due to BPH , patients symptoms will not improve as detrusor muscle incapable to contract.

Djavan B et al., showed that patients with acute urinary retention, aged ≥80 years with a retention volume of >1500 mL, no evidence of instability and maximal detrusor pressure of <28 cm H2O are at high-risk of treatment failure. He suggested that, the detrusor may recover in patients younger than 80 years after surgery, suggesting that prostatectomy should still be performed in this group even if a preoperative urodynamic study suggests an unfavourable outcome (12). The drawback of their study is that, they did not include chronic urinary retention patients.

Monoski MA et al., evaluated the utility of preoperative urodynamics, as a predictor of surgical outcome in catheterised men and found that Impaired Detrusor Contractility (IDC) and Detrusor Overactivity (DO) helped to predict the outcome. Even though almost all men improved their voiding function and quality of life after surgery, those patients without DO or IDC had the most improvement. This was particularly evident one month postoperatively, when considering the IPSS for patients with and without DO and the IPSS, Qmax, and PVR in patients with and without IDC. However, despite the increased risk of re-operation in this group, most men (63%) gained significant benefit. Therefore, preoperative IDC is not a contraindication to performing surgery (13).

Temporary catheter drainage in CUR due to BPH has a significant beneficial effect in patients, with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and should be part of initial management (11),(12). Age of presentation, duration of BOO, and amount of urine drained at presentation have a clinically significant influence on detrusor recovery in patients undergoing catheter drainage. Thus, the management protocol should be individualised to have a favourable outcome (13),(14).

In the present study, the authors conclude that, chronic urinary retention due to BPH can impair detrusor function, and the minimum duration required to regain the functional properties of detrusor muscle in these patients after initial catheterisation was six weeks. Patients having upper tract changes, due to chronic urinary retention with BPH, mainly have high detrusor pressure at filling cystometry (Pdet at filling cystometry >40 cm H2O) on UDS. UDS can differentiate the patients, who get more benefits after prostate operation in these patients. Patients of extreme ages need extra caution. So far, the authors have searched, but no single study of serial UDS examination in chronic urinary retention patients due to prostatomegaly, is available.

Limitation(s)

Limitations of the present study are small sample size, shorter duration of the serial urodynamic study, unable to conclude on detrusor function recovery in patients, which remains underactive for upto six weeks.

Conclusion

Patients of chronic urinary retention due to BPH may have impaired detrusor function. Upper tract changes mainly occur in chronic urinary retention patients. Minimum time required to regain the contractile ability of detrusor muscle to the near normal range is six weeks in impaired detrusor function patients. One should wait till six weeks or beyond for TURP, after initial catheterisation in these patients because the early operation will not help to improve symptoms.

References

1.
Spatafora S, Conti G, Perachino M, Casarico A, Mazzi G, Pappagallo GL, et al. AURO. BPH Guidelines Committee. Evidence-based guidelines for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms related to uncomplicated benign prostatic hyperplasia in Italy: Updated summary. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:1715-32.[crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al; Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: Report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167-78. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Kaplan SA, Wein AJ, Staskin DR. Urinary retention and post-void residual urine in men: Separating truth from tradition. J Urol. 2008;180:47-54. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Negro CLA, Muir GH. Chronic urinary retention in men: How we define it and how does it affect treatment outcome. BJU Int. 2012;110:1590-94. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Selius BA, Subedi R. Urinary retention in adults: Diagnosis and initial management. Am Fam Physician. 2008;77:643-50.
6.
Paul HA, Dunn M, George N. Urodynamic findings in chronic retention of urine and their relevance to results of surgery. BMJ. 1978;2:1258-60. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Osman NI, Chapple CR, Abrams P, Dmochowski R, Haab F, Nitti V, et al. Detrusor underactivity and the underactive bladder: A new clinical entity? A review of current terminology, definitions, epidemiology, aetiology, and diagnosis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):389-98. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Abarbanel J, Marcus EL. Impaired detrusor contractility in community-dwelling elderly presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urol. 2007;69:436-40. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Fait G, Sassone AM, Chaikin DC, Gordon D, et al. The significance of the American urological association symptom index score in the evaluation for bladder outlet obstruction. J Urol. 2000;163:207-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Ghalayini IF, Al-Ghazo MA, Pickard RS. A prospective randomised trial comparing transurethral prostatic resection and clean intermittent self-catheterisation in men with chronic urinary retention. BJU Int. 2005;96:93-97. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Pal M, Joshi VS, Sagade SN. Does temporary catheter drainage of urine improves detrusor function in chronic urinary retention in patients with bladder outlet obstruction. Urol Nephrol J. 2017;4:16-21. [crossref]
12.
Djavan B, Madersbacher S, Klingler C, Marberger M. Urodynamic assessment of patients with acute urinary retention: Is treatment failure after prostatectomy predictable? J Urol. 1997;158:1829-33. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Monoski MA, Gonzalez RR, Sandhu JS, Reddy B, Te AE. Urodynamic predictors of outcomes with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and preoperative retention. Urol. 2006;68:312-17. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Griffiths D, Höfner K, van Mastrigt R, Rollema HJ, Spångberg A, Gleason D, et al. Standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tractfunction: Pressure-flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance andurethral obstruction. International continence society subcommitteeon standardisation of terminology of pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 1997;16:01-18. [crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58873.17172

Date of Submission: Jul 04, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Aug 10, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Sep 20, 2022
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2022

Author declaration:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 06, 2022
• Manual Googling: Sep 16, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 19, 2022 (25%)

Etymology: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com