Original Article

The relationships between metabolic syndrome, erectile dysfunction and lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Volume 41 · Issue 1 Publish Date: July 25, 2019
Full Text PDF
DOI
Yunus Doğan
Department of Urology, Tunceli State Hospital, Tunceli, Turkey
Fatih Uruç
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Bekir Aras
Department of Urology, Dumlupınar University Faculty of Medicine, Kütahya, Turkey
Aytaç Şahin
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Mithat Kıvrak
Department of Urology, Muş State Hospital, Muş, Turkey
Ahmet Ürkmez
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Numan Doğu Güner
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Sabahattin Aydın
Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
Full Text Full Text PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Objective: To determine the relationship between erectile dysfunction and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

Material and methods: Seventy-eight patients who were admitted to our outpatient clinic because of BPH-related LUTS over 40 years of age were included in the study. Patients with LUTS and erectile dysfunction (ED) were evaluated by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) forms. The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria was used for the diagnosis of MetS. LUTS were classified as mild, moderate, and severe according to IPSS and ED was classified as mild- moderate, moderate, and severe according to the IIEF-5. For the evaluation of data, descriptive statistical methods (mean, standard deviation, median, frequency, ratio, minimum, and maximum) and also for the comparison of the variables with non-normal distribution in 3 or more than 3 groups Student’s t test, Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA, chi-square, Fisher Exact tests, and Pearson correlation analysis were used. P<0.05 was accepted as the level of statistical significance.

Results: Mean age of the patients included in the study was 61.83±9.15. In 34.6% of the patients with MetS, 70.5% of the patients with ED and 37.2% of the patients with severe LUTS were determined. There were no significant differences between the mean age of patients with and without metabolic syndrome (p>0.05). There was a positive correlation with age and severity of LUTS but this relationship was not found to be statistically significant (p>0.05). Mean age of the patients with ED was significantly higher than those without (p<0.001). A statistically significant relationship was not observed between the mean IPSS scores and the severity of LUTS with Mets. However, we observed a weakly positive correlation between triglyceride levels and IPSS. Mean IIEF-5 scores of the patients with MetS were significantly lower than those of the patients without MetS. Severity of ED in the patients with MetS was significantly higher than patients without MetS. The percentage of ED in patients with severe LUTS was found to be statistically higher than other patients with mild, and moderate LUTS. In addition, we found a low degree of negative correlation between IPSS and IIEF-5 scores.

Conclusion: In patients with LUTS as a consequence of BPH, when severity of symptoms increases, frequency of MetS increases proportionally and severe ED is observed much more frequently.

Similar Articles

Article Info
Published In
Journal Urology Research & Practice
Volume / Issue Volume 41 · Issue 1
Pages 7-12
History
Published Online July 25, 2019
Copyright
Affiliations
Yunus Doğan
Department of Urology, Tunceli State Hospital, Tunceli, Turkey
Fatih Uruç
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Bekir Aras
Department of Urology, Dumlupınar University Faculty of Medicine, Kütahya, Turkey
Aytaç Şahin
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Mithat Kıvrak
Department of Urology, Muş State Hospital, Muş, Turkey
Ahmet Ürkmez
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Numan Doğu Güner
Department of Urology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Sabahattin Aydın
Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
Cite this Article
Outlines