Correlación cuantitativa y cualitativa de la inflamación prostática con el volumen prostático, el antígeno prostático específico y sintomatología urinaria obstructiva en pacientes con hiperplasia prostática obstructiva (HPO).
Objective: To determine the relation between type (TI), agresiveness (AI) and predominant celularity in inflammation (CIP) with prostatic volume (VP), prostate specific antigen (APE) and acute urinary retention (RAO) in patients with obstructive prostatic hyperplasia (HPO). Material and methods: Rev...
| Publicado en: | Boletín del Colegio Mexicano de Urología Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 6 - 11 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Colegio Mexicano de Urologia A.C.
ene-abr2008
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | Objective: To determine the relation between type (TI), agresiveness (AI) and predominant celularity in inflammation (CIP) with prostatic volume (VP), prostate specific antigen (APE) and acute urinary retention (RAO) in patients with obstructive prostatic hyperplasia (HPO). Material and methods: Review of clinical-pathological files of patients who underwent TURP due to HPO in the years 2005 and 2006, analysing the relationship between TI, AI and CIP with VP, APE and RAO. Results: We reviewed 130 cases, only 45 were included. VP (g) for TI was: G1 = 24.2, G2 = 29.5, G3 = 32.7. VP (g) for AI was: G0 = 25.94, G1 = 26.9, G2 = 28.5, G3 = 21.6. VP (g) for CIP was: lymphocitic (L) = 26.4, polymorphonuclear (P) = 32.2, macrophages (M) = 10.5. APE (ng/mL) for TI was: G1 = 7.25, G2 = 4.6, G3 = 6.4. APE for AI was: G0 = 7.72, G1 = 6.82, G2 = 5.3, G3 = 1.4. APE for CIP was: L = 6.37, P = 3.1, M = 16.19. Of the 45 patients, 14 (31.1%) presented with RAO before surgery; TI was: G1 = nine (64.3%), G2 = four (28.6%), G3 = one (7.1%); AI was: G0 = five (35.7%), G1 = seven (50%), G2 = two (14.3%); CIP was: L = 11 (78.6%), P = two (14.3%), M = one (7.1%). Of the 31 patients who did not present with RAO before surgery TI was: G1 = 20 (64.5%), G2 = seven (22.6%), G3 = four (12.9%); AI was: G0 = 13 (41.9%), G1 = eight (25.8%), G2 = seven (22.6%), G3 = three (9.7%); CIP was: L = 28 (90.3%), P = two (6.5%), M = one (3.2%). We did not find any statistical difference in our analyses. Conclusions: TI, AI and CIP did not significantly influence VP, APE and RAO. Objetivo: Determinar la relación entre tipo (TI), agresividad (AI) y celularidad de inflamación (CIP) con volumen prostático (VP), antígeno prostático específico (APE) y retención aguda de orina (RAO) en pacientes con HPO. Material y métodos: Revisión de expedientes clínico-patológicos de pacientes intervenidos de RTUP por HPO en los años 2005 y 2006, analizando la relación entre TI, AI y CIP con el VP, APE y RAO. Resultados: Se revisaron 130 casos, sólo 45 se incluyeron. El VP (g) por TI fue: G1 = 24.2, G2 = 29.5, G3 = 32.7. El VP (g) por AI fue: G0 = 25.94, G1 = 26.9, G2 = 28.5, G3 = 21.6. El VP (g) por CIP fue: linfocitario (L) = 26.4, polimorfonucleares (P) = 32.2, macrófagos (M) = 10.5. El APE (ng/mL) por TI fue: G1 = 7.25, G2 = 4.6, G3 = 6.4. El APE por AI fue: G0 = 7.72, G1 = 6.82, G2 = 5.3, G3 = 1.4. El APE por CIP fue: L = 6.37, P = 3.1, M = 16.19. De 45 pacientes, 14 (31.1%) presentaron RAO previo a su cirugía; el TI fue: G1 = nueve (64.3%), G2 = cuatro (28.6%), G3 = uno (7.1%); la AI fue: G0 = cinco (35.7%), G1 = siete (50%), G2 = dos (14.3%); la CIP fue: L = 11 (78.6%), P = dos (14.3%), M = uno (7.1%). De los 31 pacientes que no presentaron RAO el TI fue: G1 = 20 (64.5%), G2 = siete (22.6%), G3 = cuatro (12.9%); la AI fue G0 = 13 (41.9%), G1 = ocho (25.8%), G2 = siete (22.6%), G3 = tres (9.7%); la CIP fue: L = 28 (90.3%), P = dos (6.5%), M = uno (3.2%). No se encontró diferencia estadística en las comparaciones realizadas. Conclusiones: El TI, AI y CIP no influyeron significativamente en el VP, APE y RAO. |
|---|