Purpose: We refined recently developed pressure flow cutoff values for fema
le bladder outlet obstruction and applied these values in a consecutive gro
up of women undergoing urodynamic testing for various lower urinary tract s
ymptoms.
Materials and Methods: A total of 87 women with clinical obstruction determ
ined by history and presenting complaint were enrolled in our prospective e
valuation of pressure flow studies. We identified 3 groups of participants
according to the suspected cause of obstruction, including prolapse in 33,
previous incontinence surgery in 25, and no likely source of obstruction id
entified from history and physical examination only in 29. An additional 12
4 patients presenting for evaluation of stress urinary incontinence served
as controls. Optimal cutoff values for determining obstruction were develop
ed using receiver operating characteristic curves. To determine the prevale
nce of bladder outlet obstruction these values were prospectively applied t
o 106 women undergoing urodynamics for various voiding complaints.
Results: In controls the average maximum flow rate was 23 cc per second and
average detrusor pressure was 21.9 cm. water, whereas the corresponding va
lues in those with clinical obstruction were 10.7 cc per second and 40.8 cm
. water (p <0.001). No differences were noted in the various obstruction gr
oups. Receiver operating characteristics analysis revealed that cutoff valu
es of 11 cc per second or less and 21 cm. water or more optimized the selec
tion of patients with bladder outlet obstruction. Using these values we not
ed a bladder outlet obstruction prevalence of 20% in a consecutive cohort o
f women undergoing urodynamic studies at our center.
Conclusions: We propose cutoff pressure flow values for identifying women w
ith bladder outlet obstruction although they should be used only in conjunc
tion with the overall clinical situation. Neither pressure flow data only n
or clinical symptoms alone may be sufficient for diagnosing obstruction in
women.