Study design, materials and methods
The present cross-sectional study describes data from patients with BPH.
- The sample was non-probabilistic, exhaustive and of convenience taken in a simple way with consecutive recruitment. The sample consisted of 30 patients with BPH who met the inclusion criteria.
Data was collected by interview using a questionnaire. It consists of several closed and open questions with short answers.
- The first part of the questionnaire made it possible to collect information on the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients (age, signs of admission to BPH and history: HTA; Diabetes, Alcohol, tobacco).
- The second part of the questionnaire made it possible to identify the elements related to the IIFE 5 score and the iPSS score.
The IIFE 5 total was categorized into:
- normal function: if the score is between 21-25
- Mild dysfunction: if the score is between 16-20
- Moderate dysfunction: if the score is between 11-15
- Severe dysfunction if the score is between 5-10
- Very severe dysfunction: if the score is between 0-5.
The iPSS score total was categorized according to what described in the table below
Quality of life assessment related to urinary symptoms:
Very satisfied 0 Rather satisfied 2 Rather bored 4 very bored 6
satisfied 1 Sharing (neither satisfied, neither bored) 3 Bored 5
Statical analysis: After encoding and validation of the data, they were entered on the computer, using Microsoft Excel 2013 software. The database being formed, the analyzes were carried out with SPSS 22 software. The statistics used to describe the variables were the mean, standard deviation and extremes for quantitative variables. Qualitative variables have been described as relative (%) and / or absolute (n) frequency. The Chi-square test was applied to compare the proportions. The correlation between the iPSS score and that of IIEF 5 was established using simple linear regression with calculation of correlation coefficient (r) and finally to estimate the degree of correlation. The p-value <0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.
Results
The average age of the patients was 69.1 ± 7.6 years with extremes ranging from 51 to 84 years. The majority of patients were between 65 and 70 years of age in a proportion of 37.8%, followed by those in the age group under 65 (26.7%).
The most frequent reasons for consultation in our patients were dysuria (55.6%), weak urination (51.1%), urinary retention (48.9%) and pollakiuria (37.8 %).
The median PSA was 5.59 ng / dl with extremes ranging from 1.14 to 24.8 ng / dl. The majority of patients had a PSA level between 4-10 ng / dl (37.8%). Urine analysis was pathological in 11.1% of patients. The median prostate volume on ultrasound was 130 g with extremes ranging from 29 to 208 g. the majority of patients had a prostate volume greater than 60 g (73.3%). After evaluation; 46.7% of patients had severe prostatic symptoms, 40% of moderate symptoms and 13.3% of mild symptoms. The average iPSS score was 19.5 ± 8.5 with extremes ranging from 6 to 34. All patients had erectile dysfunction including 62.2% severe erectile dysfunction, 22% 2 moderate dysfunction and 15.6% mild dysfunction. The iPSS score was significantly and negatively associated with the IIFE 5 score; while being very statistically significant (p <0.001) and a very strong correlation (r = 0.745). In logistic regression analysis, we note that in the presence of symptoms of moderate BPH the risk of erectile dysfunction is 4 times against a risk of 8 times for patients with severe symptoms.
Interpretation of results
The severity of prostate pathology (iPSS) is similar to the impairment of erectile function. The alteration of erectile dysfunction is more marked in the event of a severe iPSS