The Journal of urology
-
The Journal of urology · Aug 2000
Comparative StudyPlain abdominal x-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography.
Urolithiasis followup with plain abdominal x-ray requires adequate visualization of the calculus on the initial x-ray or computerized tomography (CT) study. We compared the sensitivity of plain abdominal x-ray versus CT for stone localization after positive nonenhanced spiral CT. ⋯ Plain abdominal x-ray is more sensitive than scout CT for detecting radiopaque nephrolithiasis. Of the stones visible on plain abdominal x-ray 51% were not seen on CT. To facilitate outpatient clinic followup of patients with calculi plain abdominal x-ray should be performed when a stone is not clearly visible on scout CT.
-
The Journal of urology · Aug 2000
Combination of symptom score, flow rate and prostate volume for predicting bladder outflow obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
The severity of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic enlargement correlates poorly with bladder outlet obstruction. Since urodynamic studies are presumed to be relatively complex, invasive and not cost-effective, they are not routinely performed by physicians treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms. As a result, a large number of patients are treated for bladder outlet obstruction when in fact obstruction may not be present. Since other noninvasive methods have not been effective for predicting bladder outlet obstruction, we investigated whether a combination of prostate volume, uroflowmetry and the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom index would be reliable for predicting this condition. ⋯ Our study showed that combining the AUA symptom index, maximum urine flow and prostate volume reliably predicted bladder outlet obstruction in a small subset of patients only. Although bladder outlet obstruction was correctly predicted by our threshold values of AUA symptom index, maximum urine flow and prostate volume in only 39 men (26%) with obstruction, these patients represent a substantial group in any large urological practice treating male lower urinary tract symptoms.