The UroCuff test: a non-invasive alternative to pressure flow studies in adult males with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to bladder outlet obstruction.

INTRODUCTION To assure that patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) benefit from interventions, urologists must practice careful selection of surgical candidates. Currently, 15%-30% of men do not benefit optimally from these invasive and potentially morbid procedures. Success rates following transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) are higher if bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) is confirmed prior to the procedure by invasive pressure flow studies (PFS). However, PFS may not be performed because of many reasons. We report a study of a non-invasive method of assessing BOO. MATERIALS AND METHODS The UroCuff test was compared to invasive urodynamic studies in adult males with lower urinary tract symptoms. Patients undergoing PFS for LUTS presumed to be due to BOO were recruited from a single site to perform a penile cuff test (UroCuff) at the same time as PFS. Standard PFS were performed followed immediately by a penile cuff test in the same test setting. The results were compared using basic statistical analysis. RESULTS A total of 19 men were evaluated by both PFS and UroCuff evaluation. Using PFS as the gold standard, the positive predictive value of the UroCuff penile cuff test to diagnose BOO was found to be 92%. The sensitivity of the UroCuff test for detecting BOO was 75%. When compared to PFS, patients preferred the UroCuff 100% of the time. CONCLUSIONS The UroCuff test is accurate in predicting BOO when compared to conventional invasive pressure flow studies in men with LUTS. It is well tolerated and preferred over invasive pressure flow studies.