Magnetic resonance imaging of benign prostatic hyperplasia patients

A retrospective study

https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS3.6468

Authors

  • Gayatri Patil Assistant Professor, D.Y. Patil Medical College, Pune
  • Amolkumar Patil Consultant Urologist, Aditya Birla hospital, Pune
  • Balkrishna Kitture Consultant Radiologist, Eureka diagnostics, Kolhapur

Keywords:

magnetic resonance imaging, benign prostate hyperplasia, hyperplasia patients

Abstract

The present study was conducted for assessing Magnetic resonance imaging findings of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients. The present study was conducted for assessing Magnetic resonance imaging findings of benign prostatic hyperplasia patients. Data of a total of 25 patients with BPH were enrolled. Complete demographic details of all the patients were evaluated. Wasserman NF et al classified BPH types on MRI as follows: type 0, an equal to or less than 25 cm3 prostate showing little or no zonal enlargement; type 1, bilateral TZ enlargement; type 2, retrourethral enlargement; type 3, bilateral TZ and retrourethral enlargement; type 4, solitary or multiple pedunculated enlargement; type 5, pedunculated with bilateral TZ and/or retrourethral enlargement; type 6, subtrigonal or ectopic enlargement; and type 7, other combinations of enlargements. All the details were recorded in Microsoft excel sheet and were assessed using SPSS software. Out of 25 patients, 28 percent and 24 percent of the patients were type 2 and type 4 according to classification as per MRI finding. 20 percent and 16 percent of the patients were type 3 and type 6, whereas 12 percent were type 5 according to classification as per MRI finding. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Wasserman NF. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review and ultrasound classification. Radiol Clin North AM. 2006;44:689–710.

Wasserman NF, Spilseth B, Golzarian J, Metzger GJ. Use of MRI for lobar classification of benign prostatic hyperplasia: potential phenotypic biomarkers for research on treatment strategies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:564–571.

Oelrich TM. The urethral sphincter muscle in the male. Am J Anat. 1980;158:229–246.

Marks LS, Treiger B, Dorey FJ, Fu YS, deKernion JB. Morphology of the prostate: distribution of tissue components in hyperplastic glands. Urology. 1996;44:486–492.

Peng Y, Shen D, Liao S, et al. MRI-based prostate volume-adjusted prostate-specific antigen in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42:1733–1739.

Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD. Etiology, pathophysiology, epidemiology and natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughn EB Jr, et al., editors. Campbell’s urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co; 2002. pp. 1297–1330.

Grossfeld GD, Coakley FV. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: clinical overview and value of diagnostic imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:31–47.

Ling D, Lee JK, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Glazer HS, McClennan BL. Prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: inability of MR imaging to distinguish between the two diseases. Radiology. 1986;158:103–107.

McNeal JE. Origin and evolution of benign prostatic enlargement. Invest Urol. 1978;15:340–345.

Grivas N, der Roest RV, Tillier C, Schouten D. Patterns of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Are Correlated With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Continence in Men Undergoing a Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2017 Sep;107:196-201.

Published

23-04-2022

How to Cite

Patil, G., Patil, A., & Kitture, B. (2022). Magnetic resonance imaging of benign prostatic hyperplasia patients: A retrospective study. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S3), 3398–3402. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS3.6468

Issue

Section

Peer Review Articles