COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT OF POST-VOID RESIDUAL VOLUME BY ULTRASOUND AND URETHRAL CATHETERIZATION IN OKINNIN COMMUNITY, SOUTH WEST NIGERIA
Ayomide Olajide Olufemi*, Eziyi Amogu Kalu, Ojewuyi Olufemi Olayide and Oyeniyi Ganiyu Adebukola
Background: Measurement of post-void residual volume of urine is part of assessment of patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms. Post-void Residual urine is defined as the volume of urine remaining in the bladder immediately after voluntary void. There are several means of measuring the PVR; the most common methods are urethral catheterization and abdominal ultrasound. There are controversies about accuracy of ultrasound in measurement of PVR, while urethral catheterization is considered to be the gold standard method; it is considered invasive and associated with increased risk of urinary tract infection. Materials and Method: The study was a community based study conducted over a period of six weeks in 2018. The study population were men, 40 years and above who consented to participate in the study. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select the respondents and the study was done at the health centre within the community. Ethical approval was obtained from ETHIC committee of LAUTECH Teaching Hospital Osogbo and permission to carry out the study in the community was granted by the Traditional Ruler of the community. Informed consent was taken from all participants and data including sociodemographic data, lower urinary tract symptoms captured in the international prostate symptoms score and post void residual volume were obtained with questionnaire, ultrasound and urethral catheterization. Results: A total of 236 men participated in the study, mean age was 60.81 (Range 40 to 80 years). The mean post void residual volume by catheterization was 35.74 while the mean PVR by abdominal ultrasound was slightly less at 33.74. Conclusion: Transabdominal ultrasound is an accurate, reproducible and a less invasive means of measuring post void residual volume of urine. The difference between the value obtained by the two methods were not statistically significant (p=0.06). It is safe, more acceptable by patients and it is therefore recommended as routine method of assessing post void Residual volume.
[Full Text Article]