01.12.2015 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

Terminal dribbling in male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms: relationship with International Prostate Symptom Score and with intravesical prostatic protrusion
- Zeitschrift:
- BMC Urology > Ausgabe 1/2015
Competing interests
Authors’ contributions
Background
Methods
Study population
Terminal dribbling definition and confirmation
Features measured using transrectal ultrasonography
Acquisition of IPSS questionnaires
Statistical analysis
Results
Characteristics of enrolled patents
Variables
|
All cases (
n = 578)
|
Terminal dribbling (
n = 226)
|
Non-Terminal dribbling (
n = 352)
|
p value
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years), mean ± SD
|
62.4 ± 10.8
|
62.2 ± 10.3
|
62.6 ± 11.03
|
0.775
|
PSA (ng/ml), median [IQR]
|
2.22 [0.75-5.46]
|
1.70 [0.73-4.81]
|
2.65 [0.76-5.87]
|
0.098
|
Prostate volume (cm
3), median [IQR]
|
31.0 [23.0-44.0]
|
29.0 [22.0-43.0]
|
32.0 [23.0-45.0]
|
0.261
|
Prostate transitional zone volume (cm
3), median [IQR]
|
12.0 [7.0-20.0]
|
10.0 [6.0-18.0]
|
13.0 [7.25-22.0]
|
0.116
|
IPSS total score, Mean ± SD
|
14.1 ± 8.67
|
15.7 ± 8.33
|
13.1 ± 8.72
|
<0.001
|
Voiding subscale score, mean ± SD
|
8.13 ± 5.76
|
9.23 ± 5.44
|
7.43 ± 5.85
|
<0.001
|
Storage subscale score, mean ± SD
|
5.99 ± 3.70
|
6.49 ± 3.67
|
5.66 ± 3.66
|
0.008
|
IPSS QoL score, Mean ± SD
|
3.64 ± 1.15
|
3.83 ± 1.07
|
3.51 ± 1.20
|
0.002
|
IPP (%)
|
248 (42.9 %)
|
100 (44.2 %)
|
148 (40.2 %)
|
0.402
|
Mild (%)
|
362 (15.3 %)
|
12 (12.0 %)
|
26 (17.6 %)
|
|
Moderate (%)
|
149 (60.1 %)
|
64 (64.0 %)
|
85 (57.4 %)
|
|
Severe (%)
|
65 (24.6 %)
|
24 (24.0 %)
|
37 (25.0 %)
|
The risk factors for terminal dribbling in the logistic regression analysis
Variable
|
Logistic Regression
|
||
---|---|---|---|
OR
|
95 % Confidence interval
|
p value
|
|
Age
|
1.00
|
0.98 – 1.02
|
0.707
|
PSA
|
0.98
|
0.94 – 1.02
|
0.262
|
Prostate volume (cm
3)
|
1.00
|
0.99 – 1.01
|
0.626
|
Prostate transitional zone volume (cm
3)
|
0.98
|
0.96 – 1.00
|
0.089
|
IPP
|
1.41
|
0.96 – 2.09
|
0.083
|
IPSS total
|
1.00
|
0.93 – 1.07
|
0.901
|
Voiding subscore
|
1.06
|
1.02 – 1.09
|
0.001
|
Storage subscore
|
0.96
|
0.88 – 1.05
|
0.384
|
IPSS QoL
|
1.15
|
0.94 – 1.41
|
0.170
|
Variable
|
Logistic Regression
|
||
---|---|---|---|
OR
|
95 % Confidence interval
|
p value
|
|
Age
|
0.99
|
0.97 – 1.01
|
0.530
|
PSA
|
0.97
|
0.92 – 1.02
|
0.273
|
Prostate volume (cm
3)
|
1.00
|
0.99 – 1.01
|
0.752
|
Prostate transitional zone volume (cm
3)
|
1.00
|
0.99 – 1.02
|
0.713
|
IPP
|
2.83
|
1.91 – 4.21
|
<0.001
|
IPSS total
|
0.96
|
0.89 – 1.04
|
0.363
|
Voiding subscore
|
1.03
|
0.93 – 1.15
|
0.561
|
Storage subscore
|
1.01
|
0.96 – 1.07
|
0.600
|
IPSS QoL
|
1.23
|
0.98 – 1.55
|
0.070
|
Discussion
Source
|
Study sample
|
Prevalence
|
Questionnaires used
|
Definition of terminal dribbling
|
Remark
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boyarsky
et al. (1977)
4
|
Not a clinical study
|
Not determined
|
A pilot questionnaire with 10 items
|
No specific definition of terminal dribbling.
|
Suggested a guideline with a 10 item questionnaire including terminal dribbling.
|
Garraway
et al. (1991)
20
|
Community sample
|
45 %
|
A pilot questionnaire by Fowler
16
|
Patients were asked to rate the frequency of dribbling after urination. (Confusion with post-void dribbling)
|
Uroflowmetry and transrectal ultrasonography were done. Undetermined impact of terminal dribbling
|
Meyhoff
et al. (1993)
12
|
LUTS patients
|
Not determined
|
DAN-PSS-1
|
“Do you experience dribbling after voiding, when you feel you have finished urination?” (Confusion with post-void dribbling)
|
Post-void dribbling was aggravated after transurethral prostatectomy.
|
Chute
et al. (1993)
13
|
Community sample
|
36–44 %
|
A pilot questionnaire by Epstein
18
|
“Dribbling after urinating.” (Confusion with post-void dribbling)
|
Uroflowmetry and transrectal ultrasonography were done. Terminal dribbling was noted to be bothersome.
|
Reynard
et al. (1996)
6
|
LUTS patients
|
44 % in questionnaire, 27 % in uroflowmetry
|
Not determined
|
“Does your urinary stream end with a dribble?” Gradient of a line drawn between the maximum flow rate and the end of flow was <0.25 and if, in the terminal 15 s of uninterrupted flow, the flow rate did not exceed 5 ml/s at any point.
|
Pressure-flow study was done. Terminal dribbling on questionnaire was not related to BOO defined by pressure-flow study.
|
Hughes
et al. (2000)
1
|
Community sample
|
35 %
|
ICS male questionnaire
|
“Do you have any trickle/dribble at the final part of micturition?”
|
Terminal dribbling was the single- most bothersome symptom.
|
Scarpa
et al. (2001)
2
|
LUTS patients
|
88 %
|
ICS male questionnaire
|
“Do you have any trickle/dribble at the final part of micturition?”
|
Terminal dribbling was the both most common and bothersome symptom
|
Jin
et al. (2003)
3
|
LUTS patients
|
85.6 %
|
ICS male questionnaire
|
“Do you have any trickle/dribble at the final part of micturition?”
|
Translated questionnaire in Korean. Pressure-flow study was done. IPP was not checked.
|
Yano
et al. (2004)
16
|
LUTS patients
|
Not determined
|
Saitama Prostate Symptom Score
|
“Do you experience dribbling after voiding, when you feel you have finished urination?”
|
Validation study with IPSS. Pressure-flow study was done. Undetermined impact of terminal dribbling.
|
Shiri
et al. (2005)
14
|
Community sample
|
52 %
|
DAN-PSS-1
20
|
“Do you consider your urinary stream as dribbling?”
|
Relationship between LUTS and ED. Terminal dribbling was related to ED.
|