{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026747195858498704, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010353753235547885, 'mean_word_length': 5.4088397790055245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Value of intravenous urography versus ultrasound in preoperative assessment of prostatic hyperplasia].

Even 60 years after its first clinical application intravenous urography (IVU) is still an essential part of basic diagnostic measures in benign hyperplasia of the prostate (BPH). We compared the value of the IVU to the ultrasound examination in the preoperative evaluation prospectively in 79 patients. Out of a total of 16 pathological findings (20%), only 5 findings (6.3%) could be proved in the IVU. If there was no clinical relevance, however, no treatment was necessary; neither did the pathological findings influence the strategy of surgery. Indirect signs of a tumour in 3 IVU's could be identified ultrasonically as parapelvic or cortical cysts, respectively. In addition to reliable and reproducible estimates of prostatic size, ultrasonography provides information on the residual volume, dilatation of the upper urinary tract, renal masses or stone disease. We recommend ultrasound examination as a helpful method in the preoperative evaluation of BPH. IVU should be considered only for answering specific and clinically relevant questions.