Purpose

To evaluate clinical implications of residual urine

sense despites of no or little post-void residual in

men with lower urinary tract symptoms

The records were obtained from the prospectively

maintained database for first-visit men with lower

urinary tract symptom (LUTS).

• Uroflowmetry, post-void residual, prostate voume,

International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS), and

Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) were

checked.

• A total of 905 patients’ records were reviewed.

• Patients with comorbidities which may affect voiding

function and those with post-void residual > 20mL

were excluded.

• Finally, 421 patients were eligible for the analysis.

Propensity scores were used to match patients in

our final cohorts, based on the range of each

characteristic.

• Propensity scores were calculated for each patient

using a multivariable logistic regression model based

on the following covariates: age, prostate volume,

voided urine, maximum flow rate (Qmax) and PVR.

Propensity score-matching reduces the impact of

treatment-selection bias when estimating causal

treatment effects using observational data

Paradoxical sense of incomplete emptying is a

frequent complaint, and is associated with storage

symptoms as well as voiding symptoms.

It might be associated with overactive bladder

in terms of hypersensitivity rather than overactivity.

Joo Yong Lee, Dae Hun Lee, Woo Jin Bang1, Yoon Soo Hah, Hyung Ho Lee,

Won Sik Ham, Young Deuk Choi, Sung Joon Hong and Kang Su Cho*

Department of Urology, Severance Hospital and Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul,

and 1Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea

Materials and Methods

Conclusion

Results

Results

IPSS

• There was a statistically significant difference in

IPSS between the paradoxical and control groups

(23.04±5.68 versus 13.21±5.48, respectively;

P<0.001).

OABSS

• There was a statistically significant difference in

OABSS between the paradoxical and control groups

(5.15±3.46 versus 3.81±2.60, respectively;

P=0.001).

Table 1. Comparison of IPSS/QoL and OABSS between paradoxical and

control groups

Paradoxical group Control groupP-value*

(N=114) (N=114)

IPSS

Total score 23.04±5.68 13.21±5.48 <0.001

Voiding symptom

(Q3, Q5, Q6)10.26±3.54 6.06±3.43 <0.001

Storage symptom

(Q2, Q4, Q7)8.14±3.44 5.65±2.74 <0.001

Post-micturitional symptom 4.64±0.48 1.68±1.12 <0.001

Quality of life 4.51±0.80 3.53±1.05 <0.001

OABSS

Total score 5.15±3.46 3.81±2.60 0.001

Day-time frequency 0.67±0.58 0.42±0.51 0.001

Nocturia 1.76±1.02 1.51±0.95 0.059

Urgency 2.04±1.61 1.36±1.42 0.001

Urge incontinence 0.69±1.35 0.40±1.00 0.073

*Student t-test

IPSS: International Prostate Symptom Score

OABSS: Overactive Bladder Symptom Score

Poster No. 379