%0 Journal Article
%T Intravesical Prostate Protrusion (IPP) versus Middle Lobe Volume on Ultrasonography in Assessing the Impact of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
%A Mazamaesso Tchaou
%A Judith Mahunan Hounkpevi
%A Pihou Gbande
%A Essodina Padja
%A Tchilabalo Kpatcha
%A Ekou¨¦ Gbadoe
%A Tchin Darre
%A Lama Kegdigome Agoda-Koussema
%J Open Journal of Radiology
%P 193-202
%@ 2164-3032
%D 2020
%I Scientific Research Publishing
%R 10.4236/ojrad.2020.104019
%X <strong>Background:</strong> Ultrasound is the main method of exploring the prostate. In benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), it provides important morphological information and assesses its impact, helping to guide the treatment. <strong>Objective:</strong> To compare intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) and middle lobe volume by ultrasound in BPH. <strong>Method:</strong> This was a single center prospective, descriptive and analytical study, over a period of 6 months, including 95 patients, undergoing prostatic trans-abdominal ultrasound. Patients were selected by a single urologist for clinical suspicion of benign prostatic hypertrophy. The ultrasound examination was done by a single senior radiologist. <strong>Results:</strong> The mean age of the patients was 66.63 ¡À 11.55 years with ranges from 38 to 98 years. The prevalence of BPH was 76.84%. The rate of patient with middle lobe protrusion was 48.42%. The mean middle lobe volume was 11.29 ¡À 12.90 ml. More than half of the patients (50.91%) had an IPP stage 3 of. The mean bladder wall thickness was 6.08 ¡À 2.58 mm, with 50.53% being pathological. The post-voiding residue (PVR) was significant in 38.75% of patients. Renal repercussions were present in 17.89%. The correlation analysis did not note a statistical link between prostate volume and quality of life score (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05). There was a statistically significant correlation between IPP values and quality of life score (<em>p</em> = 00461), IPSS score (<em>p</em> = 0.0424) and PVR (<em>p</em> = 0.0395). For middle lobe volume, there was a correlation with PVR (<em>p</em> = 0.0018). There was no correlation with clinical impact (quality of life score and IPSS score). <strong>Conclusion:</strong> The IPP appears to be an easy element to measure and better than the volume of the prostate and the middle lobe in assessing the impact of BPH.
%K Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
%K Ultrasonography
%K Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion
%K Middle Lobe
%K Togo
%U http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=104623