The comparative pressure-flow plot properties of radiological bladder neck and prostatic obstruction.

Objectives: To test the hypotheses that: (i) significant differences should exist in pressure/flow data between radiologically determined bladder neck and prostatic obstruction; (ii) these differences should inform understanding of the pathophysiology of male outflow obstruction. The biomechanics of the voiding/pressure/flow plot imply that a urodynamic assessment trace should identify outflow obstruction and characterise the urethral viscoelastic properties. Micturating cystourethrograms (MCUG) images might provide a useful diagnostic dichotomy for testing these assumptions.

Materials And Methods: The pressure/flow data from 71 men who also provided video-urodynamic imaging data that a radiologist could classify unequivocally as showing bladder neck obstruction (42) or prostatic obstruction (29) were analysed. The following variables were recorded: the detrusor pressure at initiation of voiding (P(det.open)); the detrusor pressure at the end of voiding (P(det.close)); the detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate (Q(max)), (P(det.)Q(max)), and Q(max). The urethral resistance relation (URR) was drawn onto the pressure-flow plot and the gradient of the URR, DeltaP(det)/DeltaQ, was calculated.

Results: There were significant between group differences in P(det.open) (95% confidence interval of the difference 5.2-28.6, U = 352, P = 0.003); P(det.close) (0.2-15.0, U = 428, P = 0.034); P(det).Q(max) (0.0-18.9, U = 439, P = 0.05); Q(max) and DeltaP(det)/DeltaQ did not distinguish between the MCUG groups (95% confidence interval of the difference 2.3-18, U = 111; P = 0.004). The best-fit model from linear combinations of the data achieved an area under the receiver operator curve of 0.72 for discriminating between the MCUG groups.

Conclusions: The urodynamic assessment identified interesting and coherent biomechanical differences, and could distinguish between the obstructions with a moderate degree of accuracy.