-
World Journal of Urology Jul 2019Though clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease worldwide, there is still much confusion in the literature and the many clinical guidelines as to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Though clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease worldwide, there is still much confusion in the literature and the many clinical guidelines as to its definition. Often the disease is associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and managed according to only symptoms. This leads to undertreatment in some patients with severe bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) with no symptoms, and overtreatment in patients with LUTS but no clinical BPH.
DEFINITION OF A DISEASE
Fundamentally, a disease can be defined as an abnormal structure or function or a condition which may cause harm to the organism.
DEFINITION OF CLINICAL BPH
Thus, clinical BPH can be defined as prostate adenoma/adenomata, causing a varying degree of BOO, which may eventually cause harm to the patients. With this definition, we are then able to differentiate the disease clinical BPH from the many other less common causes of LUTS, and then treat it according to its severity.
DIAGNOSING CLINICAL BPH
Clinical BPH can be diagnosed with non-invasive ultrasound in the clinic, grading it according to the shape (intravesical prostatic protrusion) and size of the prostate.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Treatment can then be planned according to the disease severity using our staging system that classifies severity according to the presence or absence of significant obstruction and bothersomeness of symptoms.
CONCLUSION
This would lead to better individualised and cost-effective management of the disease clinical BPH.
Topics: Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Organ Size; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Ultrasonography; Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction
PubMed: 30805683
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02691-0 -
American Family Physician Oct 2018Urinary retention is the acute or chronic inability to voluntarily pass an adequate amount of urine. The condition predominantly affects men. The most common causes are...
Urinary retention is the acute or chronic inability to voluntarily pass an adequate amount of urine. The condition predominantly affects men. The most common causes are obstructive in nature, with benign prostatic hyperplasia accounting for 53% of cases. Infectious, inflammatory, iatrogenic, and neurologic causes can also affect urinary retention. Initial evaluation should involve a detailed history that includes information about current prescription medications and use of over-the-counter medications and herbal supplements. A focused physical examination with neurologic evaluation should be performed, and diagnostic testing should include measurement of postvoid residual (PVR) volume of urine. There is no consensus regarding a PVR-based definition for acute urinary retention; the American Urological Association recommends that chronic urinary retention be defined as PVR volume greater than 300 mL measured on two separate occasions and persisting for at least six months. Initial management of urinary retention involves assessment of urethral patency with prompt and complete bladder decompression by catheterization. Suprapubic catheters improve patient comfort and decrease bacteriuria and the need for recatheterization in the short term; silver alloy-coated and antibiotic-impregnated catheters offer clinically insignificant or no benefit. Further management is decided by determining the cause and chronicity of the urinary retention and can include initiation of alpha blockers with voiding trials. Patients with urinary retention related to an underlying neurologic cause should be monitored in conjunction with neurology and urology subspecialists.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Curriculum; Education, Medical, Continuing; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Ureteral Obstruction; Urinary Retention; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 30277739
DOI: No ID Found -
European Urology Jul 2021Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) still remains under... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 2-yr Outcomes of a Randomised, Open-label, Single-centre Trial.
BACKGROUND
Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) still remains under investigation.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of PAE and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of LUTS/BPO at 2 yr of follow-up.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A randomised, open-label trial was conducted. There were 103 participants aged ≥40 yr with refractory LUTS/BPO.
INTERVENTION
PAE versus TURP.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and other questionnaires, functional measures, prostate volume, and adverse events were evaluated. Changes from baseline to 2 yr were tested for differences between the two interventions with standard two-sided tests.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
The mean reduction in IPSS after 2 yr was 9.21 points after PAE and 12.09 points after TURP (difference of 2.88 [95% confidence interval 0.04-5.72]; p = 0.047). Superiority of TURP was also found for most other patient-reported outcomes except for erectile function. PAE was less effective than TURP regarding the improvement of maximum urinary flow rate (3.9 vs 10.23 ml/s, difference of -6.33 [-10.12 to -2.54]; p < 0.001), reduction of postvoid residual urine (62.1 vs 204.0 ml; 141.91 [43.31-240.51]; p = 0.005), and reduction of prostate volume (10.66 vs 30.20 ml; 19.54 [7.70-31.38]; p = 0.005). Adverse events were less frequent after PAE than after TURP (total occurrence n = 43 vs 78, p = 0.005), but the distribution among severity classes was similar. Ten patients (21%) who initially underwent PAE required TURP within 2 yr due to unsatisfying clinical outcomes, which prevented further assessment of their outcomes and, therefore, represents a limitation of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
Inferior improvements in LUTS/BPO and a relevant re-treatment rate are found 2 yr after PAE compared with TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP. The disadvantages of PAE regarding functional outcomes should be considered for patient selection and counselling.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostatic artery embolisation is safe and effective. However, compared with transurethral resection of the prostate, its disadvantages regarding subjective and objective outcomes should be considered for individual treatment choices.
Topics: Arteries; Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33612376
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.008 -
World Journal of Urology Jul 2021
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction
PubMed: 34283282
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03780-9 -
Seminars in Interventional Radiology Dec 2022Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive technique with proven safety and efficacy to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign... (Review)
Review
Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive technique with proven safety and efficacy to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In this review, we discuss the required level of evidence to implement and adopt treatment options for patients with LUTS due to BPO/BPH. Focus is given on the long-term (>3 years) data after PAE with reported outcomes including cohort sizes, follow-up times, reintervention rates (repeat PAE and prostatectomy), need for LUTS/BPO medical therapy, and improvements in International Prostate Symptom Score/quality of life score, peak flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen. The durability of treatment effects after PAE and need for prostatic reinterventions need to be taken into consideration when discussing treatment options with patients and referring colleagues from other medical specialties. Developments in medical devices used for PAE have allowed for a continuous drop in unilateral PAE rates over the last 12 years and will probably play a role in optimizing technical and thus clinical outcomes for patients with LUTS due to BPH/BPO.
PubMed: 36561801
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759732 -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Jun 2017To report the five year results of a prospective, multi-center, randomized, blinded sham control trial of the Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) in men with bothersome lower... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
To report the five year results of a prospective, multi-center, randomized, blinded sham control trial of the Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) in men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
At 19 centers in North America and Australia, 206 subjects ≥ 50 years old with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ) > 12, peak flow rate (Qmax) ≤ 12 mL/s, and prostate volume 30 cc-80 cc were randomized 2:1 to the PUL procedure or blinded sham control. In PUL permanent UroLift implants are placed to hold open the lateral lobes of the prostate to reduce urinary obstruction. After randomized comparison at 3 months and the only opportunity to add more PUL implants, PUL patients were followed to 5 years. LUTS severity (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), BPH Impact Index (BPHII), Qmax, sexual function, and adverse events were assessed throughout follow up.
RESULTS
IPSS improvement after PUL was 88% greater than that of sham at 3 months. LUTS and QOL were significantly improved by 2 weeks with return to preoperative physical activity within 8.6 days. Improvement in IPSS, QOL, BPHII, and Qmax were durable through 5 years with improvements of 36%, 50%, 52%, and 44% respectively. No difference was seen between Intent to Treat and Per Protocol populations. Surgical retreatment was 13.6% over 5 years. Adverse events were mild to moderate and transient. Sexual function was stable over 5 years with no de novo, sustained erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS
PUL offers rapid improvement in symptoms, QOL and flow rate that is durable to 5 years. These improvements were achieved with minimal use of a postoperative urinary catheter, rapid return to normal, and preservation of both erectile and ejaculatory function. Symptom improvement was commensurate with patient satisfaction. PUL offers a minimally invasive option in the treatment of LUTS due to BPH.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Ejaculation; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Penile Erection; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Prostatism; Prostheses and Implants; Quality of Life; Reoperation; Severity of Illness Index; Sexuality; Treatment Outcome; Urodynamics
PubMed: 28646935
DOI: No ID Found -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Oct 2020INTRODUCTION To characterize procedure variables and outcome data from men undergoing the Aquablation Therapy of the prostate procedure for lower urinary tract symptoms...
UNLABELLED
INTRODUCTION To characterize procedure variables and outcome data from men undergoing the Aquablation Therapy of the prostate procedure for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of robotically guided waterjet-based prostate resection in the first study of all-comers in a single-center, commercial setting in the United States.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The analysis was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data.
RESULTS
Fifty-five men underwent the Aquablation of the prostate between July 2018 and December 2019. Mean prostate volume was 100 cc, and 85% had a prominent, obstructing middle lobe. Operative time averaged 59 minutes, and the mean hemoglobin drop was 1 g/dL. A substantial improvement of 80% (17 points) was seen in BPH symptoms scores. By uroflowmetry, Qmax improved by 182% (14 mL/sec). Men with prostate volume > 100 cc had similar hospital length of stay, BPH symptom reduction, and Qmax improvement compared to those with volume < 100 cc.
CONCLUSION
In the setting of a community private urology practice, Aquablation Therapy was safe and effective for the treatment of men with BPH regardless of prostate shape or prostate size.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Middle Aged; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Water
PubMed: 33049190
DOI: No ID Found -
Seminars in Interventional Radiology Dec 2022Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a condition that primarily affects men between the fourth and seventh decades of life, occurring due to enlargement of the prostate... (Review)
Review
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a condition that primarily affects men between the fourth and seventh decades of life, occurring due to enlargement of the prostate which subsequently causes compression of the prostatic urethra causing chronic obstruction of the urinary outflow tract. BPH can cause significant quality-of-life issues such as urinary hesitancy, intermittency, decreased urinary stream, a sensation of incomplete emptying, dysuria, urinary retention, hematuria, and nocturia. Several medical and surgical treatment modalities are available for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms and other BPH-related sequela; however, increasingly prostate artery embolization is being utilized in this patient population. Technical demands for this procedure in this population can be significant. This article describes the optimal techniques, tricks, and advanced imaging techniques that can be used to achieve desired technical outcomes.
PubMed: 36561798
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759690