Perineal sound recording for diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction
Objectives: Elderly men are prone to developing lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) possibly caused by bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). The most frequently used method to diagnose this condition is an invasive and time-consuming pressure-flow study. We are developing a novel non-invasive method to diagnose BOO in men with LUTS based on perineal sound recording. Methods: A biophysical model urethra was made from polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) cryogel with viscoelastic properties comparable to those of the male pig urethra. To this model different degrees of obstruction were applied and sound was recorded at different positions downstream of the obstruction. In a study in 16 healthy male volunteers the variability and repeatability of perineal sound recording was tested. Results: In the model three parameters, derived from the frequency spectrum of the recorded sound (i.e., weighted average frequency, standard deviation and skewness) are uniquely related to the degree of obstruction (linear regression, P < 0.001). The variability of perineal sound recording in healthy male volunteers was found to be smaller within volunteers than between volunteers (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.001) and the repeatability was comparable to that of the maximum flow rate. Conclusions: We conclude that perineal sound recordings are significantly different between volunteers. In combination with the unique relations found in the model-experiments these results increase the probability that perineal sound recording can be used as a simple and cheap non-invasive method to diagnose BOO. Clinical testing of this method is therefore strongly indicated.
|Keywords||Bladder outlet obstruction, Non-invasive urodynamics, Perineal sound recording|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.45545, hdl.handle.net/1765/63307|
|Journal||Indian Journal of Urology|
Idzenga, T, Pel, J.J.M, & van Mastrigt, R. (2009). Perineal sound recording for diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction. In Indian Journal of Urology (Vol. 25, pp. 92–98). doi:10.4103/0970-1591.45545