The reliability, advantages and limits of instrumental methods, such as uroflowmetry, urinary residue determination, urodynamic examination and urethrocystoscopy, are discussed with regard to patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. The authors concentrate on the usefulness of urodynamics (cystomanometry and pressure/flow study) in objectively detecting obstructions in the lower urinary tract and the concomitant presence of primitive or secondary detrusorial instability, which is often associated with a higher rate of therapeutic failure.
RoehrbornC.G., Di SilverioF., LericheA., RubbenH., WatanabeH.: Diagnostic work-up of patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of prostatism. The International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Proceedings. Paris-June, 26–27, 1991.
2.
RoehrbornC.G.: Objective and subjective response criteria to diagnose benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur. Urol., 24(suppl. 1): 2–11, 1993.
3.
JensenK.M., JorgensenJ.B., MegensenP.: Urodynamics in prostatism. I. Prognostic value of uroflowmetry. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol., 114(suppl.): 63–71, 1988.
4.
GriffithsH.J., CastroJ.: An evaluation of the importance of residual urine. Br. J. Radiol., 43: 409–413, 1970.
5.
KrederK.J., WebsterG.: Accertamenti urodinamici dell'ostruzione del flusso urinario. In: Problemi in Urologia, vol. 5, n. 3, settembre 1991.