EVALUATION OF APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL PROSTATE SYMPTOMS SCORE IN SUDANESE PATIENTS WITH BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of the present study is to assess the reliability and validity of IPSS in pre- and treatment of Sudanese patients with BPH.
Material and methods: In a descriptive prospective study, 350 Sudanese patients with LUTS attended the Urology department of Gezira Hospital for Renal Diseases and Surgery from September 2003 to April 2006. They were interviewed by urologists and answered the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire. Clinical work up was done for all only patients with benign hyperplasia were included in the analysis .Europeans guideline was adopted in the management and the out come was also subjected to IPSS evaluation.
Results: The most common voiding symptoms was a weak stream (93% of subjects), followed by intermittency (57%) and hesitancy (54%). The most prevalence of storage symptoms was nocturia (87% of subjects), followed by frequency (73%) and urgency (64%).
64% of the study subjects presented with severe IPSS, 33% with moderate IPSS, while only 3% of the patients presented with mild IPSS. Digital rectal examination
(DRE) was done to all study subjects. There was no significant correlation between DRE and IPSS reported.
The postoperative IPSS post treatment follow up was mild in 87%, moderate in 4% and sever in 9% of the patients.
Conclusion: Our study indicates that IPSS is informative and reproducible in assessment of patients with BPH.
References
1- Guess HA, Arrighi HM, Metter EJ, Fozard JL. Cumulative prevalence of prostatism matches the autopsy prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate 1990; 17: 241–6.
2- Laguna P, Alivizatos G. Prostate specific antigen and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Opin Urol 2000; 10: 3-8.
3- Easthman JA, Sartor O, Richey W, Moparty B, Sullivan J. Racial variation in prostate specific antigen in a large cohort of men without prostate cancer. J La State Med Soc 2001; 153: 184-189.
4- Cooney KA, Strawderman MS, Wojno KJ, Doerr KM, Taylor A, Alcser KH, Heeringa SG, Taylor JM, Wei JT, Montie JE, Schottenfeld D. Age-specific distribution of serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based study of African-American men. Urology. 2001; 57(1): 91-6.
5- Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O’Leary MP et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Measurement Committee Ameri- can Urological Association. J. Urol. 1992; 148: 1549–57.
6- Barry MJ, Williford WO, Chang Y et al (1995) Benign prostatic hyperplasia specific health status measures in clinical research: how much change in the American Urological Association symptom index and the benign prostatic hyperplasi impact index is perceptible to patients? J Urol 154:1770–1774.
7- Napalkov P, Maisonneuve P, Boyle P (1995) Geographical and temporal patterns of incidence and mortality from prostate cancer. Urology 46:47–55
8- Stephenson WP, Chute CG, Guess HA et al (1991) Incidence and outcome of surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia among residents of Rochester, Minnesota: 1980–87. A population-based study. Urology 38:32–42
9- Chute CG, Panser LA, Girman CJ et al (1993) The prevalence of prostatism: a population-based survey of urinary symptoms. J Urol 150:85–89
10- Tsukamoto T, Kumamoto Y, Masumori N et al (1995) Prevalence of prostatism in Japanese men in a communitybased study with comparison to a similar American study. J Urol 154:391–395
11- Chicharro-Molero JA, Burgos-Rodriguez R, Sanchez- Cruz JJ et al (1998) Prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Spanish men 40 years old or older. J Urol 159:878–882.
12- Patrick C Walsh. Benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Campbell’s Urology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1988, pp. 1009-1025.
13- Mc Connell J. BPH treatment guideline and patient classification. BJU, 1995; 76 (Suppl 1): 29-46.
