More articles from Volume 52, Issue 2, 2023
USE OF PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMONG BELGRADE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH DIAGNOSED SOMATIC OR MENTAL DISORDERS
IMPACTED MAXILLARY CENTRAL INCISORS WITH SUPERNUMERARY TOOTH - CASE REPORT
STANDARD AND ADVANCED METHODS FOR DIAGNOSIS OF METABOLIC SYNDROME AND ITS COMORBIDITIES IN CHILDREN
THE METHOD OF ULTRASOUND URINARY BLADDER WEIGHT CALCULATION
THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY DETECTION OF DIABETES INSIPIDUS IN CHILDHOOD
THE METHOD OF ULTRASOUND URINARY BLADDER WEIGHT CALCULATION
Medical faculty, University of Pristina , Kosovska Mitrovica , Serbia
Abstract
Objective:
To investigate correlation between ultrasonically calculated urinary bladder weight and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).
Methods:
3D and 2D measurement of parameters necessary to determine bladder weight: Inner and outer radius of the bladder, in 10 male and 10 female patients with LUTS, with urinary bladder filled to at least 200 ml of urine volume.
Results:
Average urinary bladder weight in males was 53,8 g and in female patient was 45,2 g. We found no statistically significant difference between male and female patients, all with LUTS. We also found that patients in LUTS have hypertrophied bladder, which means that urinary bladder mass should be larger and results in an increase of blader weight and both inner and outer radius of the urinary bladder, that should be detected ultrasonographically, but not too much over of pre- determined variations of normal bladder weight.
Conclusion:
Estimation of urinary bladder weight should be considered as non-invasive approach to patients with LUTS. However, it is more plausible to measure only urinary bladder wall thickness ultrasonically than to calculate urinary bladder weight without built-in software.
Keywords
Citation
Copyright
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Article metrics
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.