The full content will be available shortly. Thank you for your patience!
*Correspondence: Achmad Nursyamsir. Email: a.nursyamsir@gmail.com
Objective: Benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) is a prevalent urological condition often leading to bladder outlet obstruction. Our prospective study aimed to evaluate the relationships between prostate volume and intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) to determine if IPP is a reliable predictor of BPE. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 52 men with BPE. LUTS severity was measured using validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) scores. Both IPP and total prostatic volume (TPV) were quantified via transabdominal ultrasound. We used Spearman’s correlation and Multiple Linear Regression, along with a Kruskal-Wallis test, to analyze relationships and variations among IPP grades (p < 0.05 was significant). Results: We found significant positive correlations between IPP and the IPSS (r = 0.532, p < 0.001) and QoL scores (r = 0.546, p < 0.001). The strongest correlation was with the IPSS Voiding sub-score (r = 0.592, p < 0.001). TPV did not show a significant relationship with IPSS (r = 0.256, p = 0.067). Multiple Linear Regression confirmed IPP was the only significant independent predictor for both IPSS (B = 7.734, p < 0.001) and QoL (B = 1.113, p < 0.001), controlling for TPV and age. Conclusions: IPP is a more reliable anatomical predictor of LUTS severity and QoL than TPV. The significant correlation between IPP and symptoms supports the “ball-valve” theory of obstruction. The simple and non-invasive assessment of IPP is a valuable clinical tool for predicting symptom severity and guiding treatment decisions in men with BPE.
The full content will be available shortly. Thank you for your patience!
The editorial process consists of 6 stages:
1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.
2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.
3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.
4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.
5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.
6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.