PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
In present study, we evaluated the relationship between prostate stone and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and the effect of medications.
Materials and Methods
Between July 2005 and June 2007, 328 male patients who underwent transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) were included in this study. 237 patients who had prostate stone with or without LUTS were divided into 3 groups by the prostate stone size (3–5mm, 6–10mm and larger than 11mm). These patients were also divided into 3 groups according to the prostate stone location (the periurethral group, the peripheral group and the multiple site group). The change of the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) were measured 6 months after treatment with alpha-blocker and 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5-ARI).
Results
275 of the 328 patients who underwent TRUS complained of LUTS and 200 (72.7%) of these 275 patients had prostate stone; 37 (69.8%) of the 53 patients who did not have LUTS had prostrate stone. No statistical significance was found between LUTS and the presence of prostate stone (p=0.664). We found that the patients with LUTS showed a trend to have larger stone, but this was not statistically significant (p=0.792). The location of prostate stone tended to be periurethral for the patients with LUTS (p=0.047). The patient group with resistant to pharmacological manage of their LUTS had stones larger than 11mm, but this had no statistical significance (p=0.615). A lesser therapeutic result was related with periurethral stones (p＜0.001).
Go to : 
References
1. Jeon HJ, Chung HC, Song JM. Effects of residual prostatic calculi on lower urinary tract symptoms after transurethral resection of prostate. Korean J Urol. 2005; 46:569–73.
2. Riehl RA Jr. Case profile: prostatolithiasis. Urology. 1983; 22:318–9.
3. Kamai T, Toma T, Kano H, Ishiwata D. Urethral obstruction due to protruding prostatic calculi. J Urol. 1999; 162:163–4.
4. Taylor JS. Gross calcification whithin prostate gland. Br J Urol. 1998; 81:645–6.
5. Fox M. The natural history and significance of stone formation in the prostate gland. J Urol. 1963; 89:716–27.
6. Harada K, Igari D, Tanahashi Y. Gray scale transrectal ultrasonography of the prostate. J Clin Ultrasound. 1979; 7:45–9.
7. Sondergaard G, Venter M, Christensen PO. Prostatic calculi. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol. 1987; 95:141–5.
8. Horio Y. On the morphological alteration of the prostate gland on aging. I. A histopathological study of the prostate gland and the testis on aging and the correlation of their senile changes. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi. 1967; 58:783–813.
9. Hassler O. calcifications in the prostate gland and adjacent tissues. A combine biophysical and histological study. Pathol Microbiol. 1968; 31:97–107.
10. Park HK, Kwak C, Kim SH, Jeong H, Lee SE. The effect of prostatic calculi detected by transrectal ultrasound on the level of serum prostate specific antigen. Korean J Urol. 2003; 44:649–54.
11. Lee JG. Pathophysiology of male lower urinary tract symptoms. Korean J Urol. 2005; 46:887–96.
12. Lim JS, Shim BS. Non-responding factors of medical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Korean J Urol. 2002; 43:1040–4.
13. Song MH, Choi NG. Evaluation of distribution and size of prostatic calculi in prostatism. Korean J Urol. 1993; 34:291–6.
14. Lee BE, Kim SK. The effects of concomitant prostatic calculi to the therapeutic results in patients with chronic bacterial prostatitis. Korean J Urol. 1989; 30:876–84.
Go to :
 | Fig. 1.Transrectal ultrasound image of prostatic stone located at the periurethral gland, showing the high ecogenecity & post-acoustic shadow (A: coronal view, B: sagittal view). |
Table 1.
Comparison of the rate of prostate stone between the patients with and without lower urinary tract symptoms
| LUTS (＋), n (%) | LUTS (−), n (%) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 275 | 53 | |
| Prostate stone (＋) | 200 (72.7) | 37 (69.8) | 0.664∗ |
| Prostate stone (−) | 75 (27.3) | 16 (30.2) | |
Table 2.
Comparison of the size of prostate stone between the patients with and without lower urinary tract symptoms
| Size of stone | LUTS (＋) and stone (＋), n (%) | LUTS (−) and stone (＋), n (%) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3–5mm | 47 (23.5) | 10 (27.0) | |
| 6–10mm | 60 (30.0) | 12 (32.4) | 0.792∗ |
| ≥11mm | 93 (46.5) | 15 (40.5) | |
| Total | 200 (100) | 37 (100) |
Table 3.
Comparison of the site of prostate stone between the patients with and without lower urinary tract symptoms
Table 4.
Multivariate analysis of the lower urinary tract symptoms according to the significant parameters on univariate analysis
Table 5.
Comparison of the size of prostate stone between the patients with and without a response to medication
| Size of stone | Response (＋) | Response (−) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3–5mm (%) | 30 (24.2) | 14 (25.0) | |
| 6–10mm (%) | 35 (28.2) | 12 (21.4) | 0.615∗ |
| ≥11mm (%) | 59 (47.6) | 30 (53.6) | |
| Total | 124 (100) | 56 (100) |
XML Download