论文部分内容阅读
目的 :观察新方法 Pves-Po/Qm ax诊断膀胱出口梗阻 ( BOO)的优越性。方法 :采用德国进口 WIEST尿动力学仪 ,对 5 3例患者应用新方法 Pves-Po/Qm ax测定诊断 BOO,同时应用 ICS标准方法 Pves-Po/Qm ax测定诊断 BOO。根据逼尿肌低压低流、高压高流和正常逼尿肌压或高压伴低流或伴正常流率的不同排尿类型 ,分别应用两种方法判别 BOO进行自身对比。结果 :逼尿肌低压低流或高压高流 18例患者 ,应用 ICS标准方法 Pves-Pabd/Q max测定不能明确诊断有否BOO,但应用新方法 Pves-Po/Q max测定能明确诊断。逼尿肌高压伴低流或伴正常流率或正常逼尿肌压伴正常尿流率的 35例患者 ,分别应用两种方法诊断有否 BOO,结果基本一致。结论 :应用新方法比 ICS标准方法要优越 ,特别在逼尿肌低压低流或高压高流病例中能明确判定有否 BOO
Objective: To observe the superiority of Pves-Po / Qm ax in the diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). Methods: The WEST urine dynamic instrument imported from Germany was used to diagnose BOO in 53 patients with Pves-Po / Qm ax and PUS-Po / Qm ax in ICS. According to different detrusor low pressure low flow, high pressure high flow and normal detrusor pressure or high pressure with low flow or with normal flow rate of different urinary types, respectively, to determine the use of two methods to compare their own BOO. RESULTS: Eighteen cases of detrusor low pressure or high-pressure high flow were not diagnosed correctly by ICS standard method Pves-Pabd / Q max, but the diagnosis was confirmed by Pves-Po / Q max assay. 35 cases of detrusor hypertension with low flow or with normal flow rate or normal detrusor pressure with normal uroflow rate were used to diagnose whether there was BOO or not, and the results were basically the same. Conclusion: The new method is superior to the ICS standard method, especially in cases of detrusor low pressure or high pressure and high flow, it can be clearly determined whether BOO