Cystoscopy Scheduled...worried

Random,

Sounds like a Doc who is on the ball and has found an answer to the 'incidental finding" of wall thickness. That is the sort of story we like to hear. Good luck with the BPH. 

Best
Jack

Thank you for the replies. Had the cystoscopy done today and the doctor said my bladder looks fine although he is still running an urinalysis on a urine sample he collected. He said my prostate was more difficult to pass through so he believes BPH is the cause of the bladder wall thickening. I feel like a weight has been lifted at least for now. Thank you.

Random,
While there are variations, a generally accepted standard for wall thickness is "3 to 5 mm FOR A FULLY DISTENDED BLADDER".  When the bladder is not fully distended (incompletely distended) (not fully stretched) reviewer judgement becomes involved.

The good news is that no other suspicions were raised by the US exam, and you report no symptoms.

Many of us arrived on this forum due to "incidental findings" from a non-bladder study. For most, follow up tests give an all clear. For others, the early catch was (later) most welcomed. 

Caught early, BC is highly treatable. It is well worth the effort required to settle the "thickness" question. 

Best,
Jack

I am 37 years old and have a cystoscopy schedule after an unrelated ultrasound found:

"Incompletely distended. Wall thickness of 6.2 mm (upper limits of normal is 5 mm). No intraluminal calcifications or abnormal echogenic foci."

I have no symptoms of anything urinary related. How worried should I be?