SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • BPH;
  • guidelines;
  • male LUTS

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

The Japanese Urological Association has developed Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) for men with suspected BPH, which have been abridged and translated into English. This article is a shortened version of the English translation. The Guidelines were formulated on the basis of evidence retrieved from the PubMed database between 1995 and 2009, as well as other relevant sources. The target patients of these Guidelines are men with suspected BPH, and the target users are urologists. A mandatory assessment should include a medical history, a physical examination, the completion of symptom and quality of life questionnaires, urinalysis, prostate ultrasonography, measurement of serum prostate specific antigen and postvoid residual urine, and an uroflowmetry. Optional tests include a bladder diary, the measurement of serum creatinine, and upper urinary tract ultrasonography. Care should be taken to not overlook coexisting diseases such as an infection or malignancy that may obscure the diagnosis. Treatment should consist of conservative therapy or the use of medications such as α1-adrenoceptor antagonists, or both. The use of 5α-reductase inhibitors or anticholinergic agents should be considered in patients with an enlarged prostate (>30 mL) or overactive bladder symptoms (overactive bladder symptom score ≥6), respectively. Surgical intervention is indicated when non-surgical treatments fail to provide sufficient symptomatic relief and bladder outlet obstruction is highly suspected.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

A number of clinical guidelines have been formulated in Japan for lower urinary tract disorders such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH),1 urinary incontinence, overactive bladder (OAB), male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS),2 interstitial cystitis and hypersensitive bladder syndrome, nocturia, and neuropathic conditions. This article is a shortened version of the English translation of these Guidelines. The target subjects and users are men suspected of having BPH and urologists, respectively. In the case of male LUTS Guidelines,2 the target subjects and users are men with LUTS and non-urologist physicians, respectively. Readers should be aware of the earlier guidelines, particularly for male LUTS,2 when adopting the BPH Guidelines into clinical practice.

Methodology

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

The BPH Guidelines were developed by committee members recommended by the Japanese Urological Association (JUA). The members meticulously reviewed relevant references, retrieved via the PubMed and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina databases, published between 1995 and 2009. Other sources of information included Japanese guidelines for other conditions, the BPH Guidelines published by the American Urological Association (AUA)3 and the European Association of Urology,4 and the meeting reports of the International Consultation on Urological Diseases on male lower urinary tract disorders.5 A draft of the revised guidelines was peer-reviewed by JUA executive members before the guidelines were finalized. Funding was provided by the JUA.

Algorithm

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References
  • • 
    The algorithm (Fig. 1) is applicable to men who are suspected of having BPH. Factors suggestive of BPH include age >50 years, LUTS, and associated complications, such as urinary retention and urinary tract infection (UTI), or both.
  • • 
    The basic assessment of these men, mandatory in all cases, comprises their present and past history, the completion of symptom and quality of life (QOL) questionnaires, a physical examination, urinalysis, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine (PVR) measurement, prostate ultrasonography, and determination of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations. Optional assessments, selected on an individual basis, include keeping a bladder diary, advanced urodynamic studies, measurement of serum creatinine levels, and an upper urinary tract ultrasonography. Additional tests, such as urine cytology, urine culture, endoscopy, and radiological examinations, may be indicated when other disorders are suspected. Other disorders include prostatic cancer, prostatitis, overactive bladder, underactive bladder, bacterial cystitis, interstitial cystitis, bladder cancer, bladder stones, urethritis, urethral stricture, neurogenic bladder, hydronephrosis, polyuria, and nocturnal polyuria.
  • • 
    When the patient's history, symptoms, or test results suggest the presence of other disorders, further assessments need to be performed. Findings suggestive of other disorders are a history of urinary retention, urinary tract infection, macroscopic hematuria, pelvic surgery or radiotherapy, and neuropathic diseases; symptoms of bladder pain, perineal pain, monosymptomatic nocturia, and overt overactive bladder symptoms; and test results revealing abnormal findings on rectal examinations, urinalysis, and ultrasonography, elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, positive urinary cytology, increased PVR, bladder stones, renal dysfunction, polyuria, and nocturnal polyuria.
  • • 
    When lower urinary tract dysfunctions, including symptoms, can be attributed to BPH, both the patient's desire for treatment and the medical need for treatment should be assessed. Medical need includes the event of severe symptoms, a highly enlarged prostate, or complications, such as urinary retention, hematuria, bladder stones, renal insufficiency, and urinary tract infection.
  • • 
    When there is no desire on the part of the patient for treatment and no medical need for treatment, watchful waiting is indicated.
  • • 
    In most cases, conservative or medical therapy, or both, such as the use of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists, are first indicated. When there is an indication for surgery, further assessments prior to surgery should be undertaken. Surgery is the preferred treatment in cases in which there are benign prostatic hyperplasia-related complications, when it is anticipated that medical treatment will be insufficient, or if the patient prefers to undergo surgical therapy.
  • • 
    The baseline for medical treatment is the use of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists. When the prostate is enlarged (>30 mL) and when OAB symptoms are evident (via an overactive bladder symptom score [OABSS]≥6), consideration should be given to changing the medical treatment to 5α-reductase inhibitors or anticholinergics (either instead of, or in addition to, α1-adrenoceptor antagonists), respectively. If these measures are not fully successful, surgical indications should be evaluated.
  • • 
    An evaluation of surgical indications includes confirming the patient's desire for surgery, making a systemic review of the surgical risks, and a urodynamic evaluation of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). BOO is to be assessed by pressure-flow studies or it may be feasible using other studies, such as uroflowmetry or bladder wall thickness, or both.
  • • 
    If a patient's condition does not improve or worsens they should be reassessed, as described in the basic assessment section, for the presence of other disorders. If a patient's condition improves with treatment, regular reassessments should be undertaken to detect any possible changes in their status, with therapeutic measures adjusted accordingly.
image

Figure 1. Algorithm for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), reproduced from the original version of the JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Definition of BPH

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

There is no uniform definition for BPH.5 The International Continence Society proposed using “BPH” exclusively as a histopathological term to refer to the non-malignant hyperplasia of prostatic tissue, and coined the term “benign prostatic enlargement” (BPE) for an enlarged prostate and “benign prostatic obstruction” (BPO) for lower urinary tract obstruction.6 However, in reality, men with LUTS or lower urinary tract dysfunctions, or both, are diagnosed as having BPH when BPE is present, and when BPO is suggested, and when other pathologies are ruled out. Thus, in the present Guidelines, BPH is defined as a disease with lower urinary tract dysfunction due to benign hyperplasia of the prostate, which is usually associated with the enlargement of the prostate and LUTS that are suggestive of lower urinary tract obstruction.

Epidemiology and natural history of BPH

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

The principal risk factors for BPH are aging and normally functioning testicles. BPH is a progressive disease that is common in elderly men regardless of race, ethnicity or region.7 Although prevalence varies based on the definition of BPH used, 6 and 12% of Japanese men in their sixties and seventies, respectively, meet all three of the following criteria for BPH: (i) an international prostate symptom score >7; (ii) prostate volume (PV) >20 mL; and (iii) peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) <10 mL/s (Table 1).8,9 Risk factors for the clinical progression of BPH are aging, prostate enlargement, elevated PSA, LUTS, impaired QOL, and decreased urinary flow rate.10–12 Lethal comorbidities related to BPH are rare.

Table 1.  Prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Japan8,9
Age (years)IPSS >7 (%) (1)PVR >20 mL (%) (2)Qmax <10 mL/s (%) (3)Prevalence (%) [(1) + (2) + (3)]
  1. This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x. IPSS, international prostate symptom score; Qmax, peak urinary flow rate; PVR, postvoid residual urine.

40–49472042
50–59443562
60–695239196
70–7963374212

Pathophysiology

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

BPH consists of stromal elements made up of smooth muscle and connective tissue, as well as glandular and luminal epithelial cells, and arises in the periurethral region of the prostrate.13 An interaction is seen between stromal and epithelial cells, mediated by proliferative factors, including sex hormones, inflammation, and the stimulation of adrenergic nerves.14,15 LUTS can result from a variety of different diseases and conditions (Table 2).2 In BPH patients, urethral compression associated with prostatic enlargement causes voiding symptoms. However, age-related detrusor underactivity (DU) is also an important cause of voiding symptoms.16 Urethral compression causes distension, ischemia, inflammation and oxidative stress to the bladder, followed by changes to the bladder nerves and smooth muscle and the release of urothelial-derived mediators, causing storage symptoms.17–19 Even without compression, the stimulation of the urethral sensory nerves can cause storage symptoms.20 Important complications of BPH include recurrent urinary retention, macroscopic hematuria, bladder calculi, recurrent UTI, and post-renal renal failure.

Table 2.  Diseases and conditions that cause male lower urinary tract symptoms
  1. This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x. BPH, benign prostatic hyperplasia; OAB, overactive bladder.

1. Prostate and lower urinary tract
 Prostate: BPH, prostatitis, prostate cancer
 Bladder: bacterial cystitis, interstitial cystitis, bladder cancer, bladder stones, bladder diverticulum, OAB, other (age-related detrusor underactivity)
 Urethra: urethritis, urethral stricture
2. Nervous system
 Cerebral: cerebrovascular disorder, dementia, Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, brain tumor
 Spinal cord: spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord tumor, spinal infarction, spinal degenerative disease, spina bifida
 Peripheral nerves: diabetic neuropathy, post-pelvic surgery
 Other: aging, autonomic hyperactivity
3. Miscellaneous
 Drug related, polyuria, sleep disorders, psychogenic

Diagnosis

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

Basic evaluation and tests for men suspected of BPH include a clinical history, the assessment of symptoms and QOL using validated questionnaires (i.e. the core lower urinary tract symptoms score,21 international prostate symptom score [IPSS],22 and OABSS23), a physical examination, urinalysis, uroflowmetry, PVR measurement, serum PSA determination, and a prostate ultrasonography. PSA levels predict PV and the clinical progression of BPH,24 and may increase in prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, and prostatitis. Anti-androgens and 5α-reductase inhibitors can reduce serum PSA values by approximately half.25 Case-sensitive or elective tests include keeping a bladder diary, pressure–flow studies, serum creatinine measurements, and ultrasonography of the upper urinary tract.

Treatment

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

Grades of recommendation

The grades of recommendation for treatments (Table 3) were determined via committee discussion and consensus, based on the level of evidence (Table 4), as well as the variability of conclusions, the magnitude of effect, clinical applicability, adverse events, and cost. Grades of recommendation for individual treatments are shown in Table 5.

Table 3.  Grade of recommendation
GradeNature of recommendation
  1. This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x.

AHighly recommended to do
BRecommended to do
CNo firm evidence for recommendation
 C1Can be considered
 C2Not recommended
DRecommended not to do
ReservedUnable to decide grade of recommendation
Table 4.  Level of evidence
Level of evidenceType of evidence
  1. This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x.

1Evidence obtained from multiple large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCT)
2Evidence obtained from a single RCT or low quality RCT
3Evidence obtained from non-randomized controlled studies
4Evidence obtained from observational studies
5Evidence obtained from case studies or expert opinions
Table 5.  Grade of recommendation – pharmacotherapy; surgical interventions and other treatments
TreatmentGrade
  • See “Guidelines for Management of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms”.4 This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x.

Pharmacotherapy 
 α1-adrenoceptor antagonists (α1-blockers) 
  Tamsulosin, naftopidil, silodosin, terazosin, urapidilA
   PrazosinC1
 5α-reductase inhibitors 
  DutasterideA
  FinasterideReserved (not approved)
 Anti-androgens 
  Chlormadinone, allylestrenolC1
 Others 
  Eviprostat®, Cernilton®, Paraprost®, Chinese herbal medicines (Hachimi-jio-gan, Gosha-jinki-gan)C1
  Flavoxate, antidepressants, cholinergics, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitorsReserved (not approved)
Surgical interventions 
 Open prostatectomy (sub-capsular enucleation)B
 Transurethral resection of the prostateA
 Transurethral incision of the prostateB
 bipolar-TURPA
 Holmium laser enucleation of the prostateA
 Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate by KTP laserB
 Holmium laser ablation of the prostateB
 Transurethral detachment of the prostate, transurethral enucleation with bipolar systemC1
 Interstitial laser coagulation of the prostateC1
 High-intensity focused ultrasoundC1
 Transurethral needle ablationC1
 Transurethral microwave thermotherapyB
 Urethral stentC1
 Transurethral ethanol ablation of the prostateReserved (not approved)
 Botulinum toxin injectionReserved (not approved)
Other treatments 
 Lifestyle modificationB
 Watchful waitingB
 SupplementsC2
 Indwelling catheterReserved
 Intermittent catheterizationB

Pharmacotherapy

1 α1-adrenoceptor antagonists

α1-adrenoceptor antagonists relieve outlet obstruction by inhibiting contractions mediated by prostatic α1-adrenoceptors, thereby ameliorating LUTS of BPH. α1-adrenoceptor antagonists, also referred to as α1-blockers, can result in the rapid relief of LUTS. The use of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists can result in a 16–25% (2.0–2.5 mL/s) increase in maximum flow rate and a 30–40% (4–6 point) reduction in the average IPSS.2–4,26 Adverse reactions to alfuzosin and tamsulosin, such as postural hypotension and asthenia, have been reported to be as low as that reported for placebo (4–10%). Other adverse events include ejaculatory dysfunction and intraoperative floppy iris syndrome. All α1-adrenoceptor antagonists have a similar efficacy in appropriate doses, with the effects being dose dependent. In Japan, tamsulosin, naftopidil, silodosin, terazosin, urapidil, and prazosin have been approved for use. Note that the recommended doses of some drugs are different in Japan than those recommended in Europe and the USA.

Tamsulosin, naftopidil, silodosin

Recommendation grade: A

There is adequate evidence to support efficacy of these three drugs for BPH (Level 1).27–29

2 5α-reductase inhibitors

These drugs inhibit both or either of the isoforms (type 1 and type 2) of 5α-reductase, suppressing production of dihydrotestosterone (DHT).

Dutasteride

Recommendation grade: A

There is adequate evidence to support efficacy for definite BPH (≥30 mL) (Level 1). Dutasteride inhibits both isoforms (type 1 and type 2) of 5α-reductase. A Japanese Phase III trial allocated patients with a prostatic volume ≥30 mL to dutasteride 0.5 mg daily (n = 193) or placebo (n = 185) for 52 weeks. Dutasteride improved IPSS by 5.3 points, maximal urine flow by 2.2 mL/s, and prostatic volume by 22% over the baseline. Although uncommon, adverse events related to sexual function were more common than placebo, and PSA levels decreased to an average 46.1%.25 These results are very similar to those in an overseas study.30

Finasteride

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

There is adequate evidence to support efficacy (Level 1),31 although finasteride is not approved for BPH in Japan.

3 Anti-androgens

These drugs inhibit the pituitary function and testicular production of testosterone, as well as testosterone uptake and DHT binding to androgen receptors in the prostate. Various adverse reactions including sexual dysfunction can occur.

Chlormadinone

Recommendation grade: C1

There is insufficient evidence to support its efficacy in BPH (Level 3).32 It is, however, thought to have a clinical effect similar to finasteride (not approved in Japan for BPH),33,34 whose efficacy has been confirmed in overseas studies.31

Allylestrenol

Recommendation grade: C1

There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of this drug (Level 3). In randomized comparative studies there were no significant differences between chlormadinone and allylestrenol in terms of efficacy, but allylestrenol had less effect on sexual function.35–37

4 Other oral medications

Eviprostat®

Recommendation grade: C1

There is some evidence to support the efficacy of this drug, although the studies are old,38,39 and its efficacy is inferior to α1-adrenoceptor antagonists (Level 2). Recent studies have reported its usefulness in combination therapy with α1-adrenoceptor antagonist.40,41 Adverse reactions are rare and minor.

Cernilton® (cernitine pollen extract)

Recommendation grade: C1

Efficacy is suggested for symptoms such as nocturia, but there is no evidence of improvement in objective findings (Level 1).42 There are few adverse reactions.

Paraprost®

Recommendation grade: C1

There is insufficient evidence to support efficacy (Level 2).43 There are few adverse reactions.

Chinese herbal medicines (Hachimi-jio-gan, Gosha-jinki-gan)

Recommendation grade: C1

There is insufficient evidence to support efficacy, although some studies have reported the usefulness of gosha-jinki-gan in combination with other agents (Level 2).44,45

Flavoxate

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

There is insufficient evidence to support efficacy (Level 2).46 Flavoxate is not approved in Japan for BPH.

Antidepressants

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

Tricyclic antidepressants have not yet been approved for the treatment of BPH. There is scant evidence supporting their efficacy (Level 5).2 Adverse events include arrhythmia and drowsiness.

Anticholinergics

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

There is evidence to support the efficacy and safety of anticholinergic monotherapy for the treatment of BPH with OAB symptoms (Level 1).47–49 However, anticholinergic agents are not covered by medical insurance for BPH in Japan, and can induce voiding difficulty or acute urinary retention in men with BPH.2 They may be used in combination with α1-adrenoceptor antagonists.

Cholinergic agents

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

Efficacy is suggested for patients whose symptoms fail to respond to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), or with neurogenic bladder (Level 5),50,51 despite contradictory studies (Level 2).52 There is no evidence to support the efficacy for BPH and no approval for its use has been given by medial insurance in Japan. Serious adverse events such as cholinergic crises, angina pectoris, and arrhythmias have been reported.

Phosphodiesterase-type 5 inhibitors

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

There is adequate evidence to support efficacy for sildenafil and tadalafil (Level 1).53–55 However, they are not approved for BPH in Japan.

5 Conservative therapies

Lifestyle modification

Recommendation grade: B

There is adequate evidence supporting the efficacy of this approach (Level 2).2 Invasiveness is almost completely absent, and the financial burden is low. Recommended lifestyles include the provision of education and reassurance, restriction of excessive fluid intake, bladder training, prompted voiding, and other measures.

Watchful waiting

Recommendation grade: B

The evidence to support the usefulness of this approach is inadequate (Level 3).13,56 However, treatment may be unnecessary for patients with BPH with no symptoms or complications, and there are few disadvantages to not intervening early with appropriate follow-up.4

Supplements

Recommendation grade: C2

Evidence to support supplements is lacking (Level 5), and inconsistent (Level 1).2 Safety is uncertain, and the cost to patients is high.

6 Other treatments

Indwelling catheterization

Recommendation grade: reserved

Although an indwelling catheter allows urine to pass out of the bladder, complications and impairment of QOL are common. Indwelling catheterization is indicated only if other treatments are impractical (Level 5).

Intermittent catheterization

Recommendation grade: B

There is evidence for the superiority for intermittent catheterization in comparison to indwelling catheterization in terms of preventing UTI57 and for early recovery of bladder function following surgery for urinary retention (Level 2).58

Surgical treatment

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

Surgical treatment for BPH is indicated in cases of: (i) insufficient response to medical therapy; (ii) the presence of moderate to severe symptoms; and (iii) in the presence of (or concern about) comorbidities, such as urinary retention, UTI, hematuria, and bladder stones. Surgical modalities are divided into three groups: (i) resection/ablation or vaporization; (ii) thermal coagulation; and (iii) other techniques. Resection/ablation or vaporization is generally more effective, but may be more often associated with perioperative complications. Although its definition is ambiguous, minimally invasive surgical treatment appears to refer to techniques that are less invasive than an open prostatectomy and TURP. The selection of surgical techniques depends on the features of BPH as well as the patient's characteristics, the availability of equipment, and the surgeon's experience. The recommendation grade for each of the techniques described was determined in comparison with TURP, the standard surgical procedure for BPH.

Open surgery (enucleation of the adenoma)

Recommendation grade: B

This classic technique may be associated with a high incidence of perioperative complications, but provides sustained efficacy, especially for large prostates.4,59,60

TURP

Recommendation grade: A

TURP is the standard, most extensively performed surgical technique for the treatment of BPH. It is usually applicable to a BPH of up to moderate size (<50–80 mL) and provides a sustained effect.4,59,61 Complications include hemorrhage and hyponatremia from irrigation fluids.

Transurethral incision of the prostate

Recommendation grade: B

This technique involves cutting the prostate at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions of the bladder neck to open the prostatic urethra. It is associated with a shorter operation time, comparable short-term (up to 12 months) efficacy, and a lower incidence of complications.62 It is applicable to relatively small-sized prostates (<20–30 mL).62,63

Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate in saline (bipolar TURP)

Recommendation grade: A

Bipolar TURP is similar technically to conventional TURP, except that it uses saline as the irrigation fluid and the endoscope sheath as the return current collector. This technique is as effective as conventional TURP, with a lower incidence of hyponatremia.64,65

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP)

Recommendation grade: A

HoLEP is applicable regardless of PV and there is sufficient evidence for its effectiveness and the sustainability of efficacy. It is comparable to open surgery or TURP in every respect, including complications.66–68

Laser vaporization of the prostate (photoselective vaporization of the prostate by KTP laser)

Recommendation grade: B

Laser vaporization is associated with a low risk of hemorrhage and can be performed safely even on large prostates.69–71 There is sufficient evidence for the effectiveness and sustainability of laser vaporization of the prostate, although tissue sampling is impossible, unlike TURP.

Transurethral enucleation with bipolar system

Recommendation grade: C1

This technique consists of the transurethral detachment and enucleation of the adenoma without a laser. It may be effective regardless of PV, but has not been evaluated sufficiently in comparison with other treatment options or in terms of its long-term outcomes.72–74

Interstitial laser coagulation of the prostate

Recommendation grade: C1

The treatment is as effective as TURP and is feasible with rare serious adverse reactions.75 Benefits are not sustained, however, with further treatment or reintervention required in almost half of patients in long-term follow-up.76,77

Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound

Recommendation grade: C1

There have been few reports of the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound. Although the safety profile is relatively favorable,78 further treatment or re-intervention is required in roughly half of patients in long-term follow-up.79

Transurethral needle ablation

Recommendation grade: C1

As much symptomatic improvement is achievable as with TURP in the short to medium term, with an increased risk of postoperative irritability and urinary retention.80–82 Re-treatment, including surgeries, is required in nearly half of cases.82

Transurethral microwave therapy

Recommendation grade: B

This is the most extensively verified, minimally invasive surgical treatment. Medium-term efficacy has been demonstrated, even for patients with large prostatic volumes or urinary retention by using a high-energy deliver system.83–85 Perioperative and postoperative safety is superior to TURP,85 although fewer than half the patients require re-intervention.86

Urethral stent

Recommendation grade: C1

Although this procedure is quickly efficacious with minimal invasiveness,87 urethral stenting may be associated with complications that require stent removal.88,89 It is indicated in high-risk patients in whom surgical interventions or other invasive therapies are contraindicated.

Transurethral ethanol ablation of the prostate

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

Efficacy has been demonstrated for symptoms and urinary flow rates,90–92 although few long-term studies with large numbers of participants and no randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing it with standard therapies are available. It is not covered by medical insurance in Japan.

Botulinum toxin injection

Recommendation grade: reserved (not approved)

There is adequate evidence to support its efficacy,93,94 although its long-term efficacy is uncertain. Botulinum toxin is not approved in Japan for BPH.

BPH treatment and sexual function

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

Treatments for BPH may impact adversely on sexual function.3 Surgical interventions often result in ejaculatory dysfunction;4,95,96α1-adrenoceptor antagonists sometimes cause ejaculatory dysfunction;29 and the use of 5α-reductase inhibitors and anti-androgens is associated with multiple sexual dysfunctions, with a higher frequency for the latter.33,36,97,98

Clinical study

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

This section details the standard criteria necessary for any clinical study on BPH.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria
  • • 
    Men aged ≥50 years (can be ≥40 years)
  • • 
    Clinical signs and symptoms of BPH
  • • 
    Moderate to severe LUTS (i.e. IPSS ≥8)
  • • 
    QOL disturbance due to LUTS (i.e. QOL score ≥2)
  • • 
    Prostate enlargement (i.e. PV ≥20 mL)
  • • 
    Suspected lower urinary tract obstruction (i.e. Qmax <15 mL/s)
Exclusion criteria
  • • 
    Suspicion or presence of diseases other than BPH
  • • 
    Persisting effects of pretreatment for BPH
  • • 
    A history of any diseases affecting lower urinary tract function
  • • 
    Conflicts with the characteristic of the treatment

Note: patients on BPH medications should stop treatment before enrollment into a study (12 months for 5α-reductase inhibitors and anti-androgens, 4 weeks for α1-adrenoceptor antagonists and anticholinergics). Those using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists should be excluded.

Criteria for severity and therapeutic efficacy

We recommend the Japanese criteria,99,100 since the standard criteria for severity and therapeutic efficacy are not available at present (Tables 6–8). The efficacy of treatment on symptoms and QOL can be assessed using changes in the symptom score, BPH impact index, King's health questionnaire, and Short Form-36, although the criteria for efficacy using these scales have not yet been standardized.

Table 6.  Standard criteria for the severity of individual domains in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)
MeasureDomains used to assess severity of BPH
SymptomsQOLFunctionAnatomy
IPSSIPSS QOL indexQmax (mL/s)PVR volume (mL)Prostate volume (mL)
  1. This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x. IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; PVR, postvoid residual urine; Qmax peak urinary flow rate; QOL, quality of life index.

Severity of BPH     
 Mild0–70, 1≥15<50<20
 Moderate8–192–4≥5<100<50
 Severe20–355, 6<5≥100≥50
Table 7.  Standard criteria for overall severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia
Overall severityNo. of domains in Table 6 evaluated as:
MildModerateSevere
  1. This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x.

Mild4, 30, 10
ModerateOther combinations
SevereAnyAny2, 3, 4
Table 8.  Standard criteria for therapeutic efficacy
MeasureDomains used to assess efficacy with respect to
SymptomsQOLFunctionAnatomy
IPSS post/preQOL pre-postQmax(mL/s) post-prePV post/pre
  1. The overall efficacy is determined as the median of efficacy for three domains: symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and function. This table has been reproduced from the original version of JUA Clinical Guidelines for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02861.x. IPSS, international prostate symptom score; PV, prostate volume; Qmax peak urinary flow rate.

Efficacy    
 Excellent≤0.25≥4≥10≤0.5
 Good≤0.503≥5≤0.75
 Fair≤0.752, 1≥2.5≤0.9
 Poor>0.75≤0<2.5>0.9

Other recommendations

Recommendations for Phase 3 clinical studies on medical treatments include; (i) double-blinded RCT using placebos or standard treatments as the control group; and (ii) monitoring of efficacy and safety for up to 12 months, with the primary end-points evaluated at 3 months.

Clinical question (CQ) 1: When is a bladder diary recommended as part of the assessment of BPH?

A bladder diary is recommended for men with daytime or nocturnal frequency (Grade B). The diary records individual voiding prospectively, enabling the accurate evaluation of voiding time, individual volumes voided, and total urinary volume. This information is useful for the differential diagnosis of urinary frequency, which can be classified as a decrease in the volume voided, polyuria, or both.2,101,102 Ideally, the diary should be kept over a period of 3–7 days, although keeping the diary for over 1 or 2 days may be sufficient.4

CQ 2: What examination is recommended for the anatomical evaluation of the prostate?

Ultrasonography is recommended for the anatomical evaluation of the prostate (Grade A). Compared with a digital rectal examination and other imaging tests, ultrasonography is more accurate and minimally invasive.2,100,102 Trans-abdominal ultrasonography is easily performed and readily able to detect bladder pathology, whereas trans-rectal ultrasonography permits the detailed imaging of the inner structures. The type of ultrasonography performed depends on the equipment available, as well as on the objective of the examination. PV is predictive of both clinical progression and the therapeutic outcomes of surgical or medical treatment.102,103

CQ 3: When and how is evaluation of the upper urinary tract recommended?

Evaluation of the upper urinary tract is not to be performed routinely. It is recommended for men with abnormal urinalysis, a large amount of PVR, renal insufficiency, or a history of other urological diseases (Grade B). In these cases, ultrasonography is recommended as the initial method of assessment.2,102 Renal ultrasonography in 556 men with BPH detected hydronephrosis, renal cysts, and renal cancer in 2.5, 11.7 and 0.18% of men, respectively.104

CQ 4: What considerations are recommended when assessing serum PSA values?

Serum PSA concentrations should be determined because higher PSA concentrations are indicative of prostatic cancer and enlarged PV.2,102 Serum PSA concentrations are increased in men with enlarged adenoma, prostate cancer, urinary retention, and prostatitis, but can be reduced approximately to 50% by long-term treatment with anti-androgens or 5α-reductase inhibitors25,97,102 (Grade A).

CQ 5: Is long-term therapy with α1-adrenoceptor antagonists recommended?

The efficacy and safety of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists up to 1 year has been reported in many studies. However, there is a relative paucity of long-term data over 3 years regarding the maintained efficacy of these drugs (Grade B). Most long-term studies into the efficacy of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists are open-label extensions of previous short-term trials or retrospective studies in real-life clinical practice. The study designs are not consistent. In long-term studies (over 3 years; range 4–10 years), approximately 18, 64, and 36–80% of patients withdrew from the studies after 2, 3, and >4 years, respectively. The risk factors for treatment failure were severe LUTS, low urinary flow rate, large prostate (>30–40 mL), large PVR or a history of urinary retention, concomitant OAB symptoms, urodynamically proven BOO, and insufficient effects with short-term therapy.105–108

CQ 6: Is combination therapy with α1-adrenoceptor antagonists and anticholinergics recommended for men with OAB?

There is adequate evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with α1-adrenoceptor antagonists and anticholinergics for BPH associated with OAB (BPH or OAB; Grade A).

For male OAB symptoms, monotherapy with α1-adrenoceptor antagonists is effective and may be a first-line treatment,2 although the efficacy of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists is limited for patients with detrusor overactivity (DO).109 The efficacy and safety of anticholinergic monotherapy have also been confirmed in the treatment of BPH and OAB.49 Combined therapies with anticholinergics and α1-adrenoceptor antagonists are more effective than monotherapy with α1-adrenoceptor antagonists in improving storage symptoms, with urinary retention being rare.48,110–112 However, it should be noted that most of these studies were conducted in Caucasian men, with strict exclusion criteria, specialist supervision, and relatively short-term observational periods. There remains a concern about the exacerbation of voiding difficulties and possible urinary retention in a practice setting.2

Note: two recent Japanese studies reported that combination therapies with tamsulosin plus anticholinergics are more effective for BPH and OAB than tamsulosin monotherapy, with lower doses of anticholinergics associated with better outcomes.113,114

CQ 7: Is combination therapy with an α1-adrenoceptor antagonist and a 5α-reductase inhibitor recommended?

Combination therapy is recommended for relatively severe disease, e.g. prostatic volume ≥30 mL (Grade B). The combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin (CombAT) study randomly assigned men with BPH (N = 4844, prostatic volume ≥30 mL, 1.5 ≤ PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL, 5 ≤ maximal urine flow ≤ 15 mL/s) to either dutasteride, tamsulosin or combination therapy for 4 years.115 The average change in the IPSS and the cumulative incidence of clinical progression, −6.3 points and 12.6% in the combination therapy group, respectively, were significantly better than in other groups. Men on combination therapy for 24 weeks were randomly assigned to either continued combination therapy or dutasteride monotherapy for 36 weeks.116 Of 82 men with a pretreatment IPSS, ≥20 symptom aggravation was reported in 14% of the continued combination therapy group and 42.5% of the dutasteride monotherapy group. A study of finasteride (not indicated for BPH in Japan), the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) study, randomly assigned 3047 men with BPH (IPSS ≥8 points, 4 ≤ maximal urine flow ≤ 15 mL/s) to placebo, doxazosin, finasteride or combination therapy.117 The risk of clinical progression during 4.5 years (5%) was significantly less in the combination therapy group. A similar additive effect of combination therapy is suggested in Japanese men,25,118 although trials on its efficacy and cost effectiveness in Japanese men are awaited.

CQ 8: What urodynamic test is recommended for men undergoing surgical treatment for BPH?

BOO, DU, and DO are all important prognostic variables for the surgical outcomes of BPH.119 Symptom improvement is less likely for men with no or equivocal BOO compared with men with evident BOO.120 Both DU without BOO and DO without BOO strongly predict treatment failure for TURP.121 A higher degree of BOO without DO or DU, or both, is associated with improvements in both symptoms and QOL.122 Thus, urodynamic examinations, including pressure-flow studies and cystometry, are recommended to delineate BOO, DU, and DO (Grade B). Predicting BOO using simpler parameters such as uroflowmetry and PV may be a viable alternative.123

CQ 9: What measures are recommended for persistent symptoms after surgical treatment (predominantly TURP)?

Appropriate treatments should be selected after evaluating possible causes other than BOO using urodynamic studies, including pressure-flow studies and recording a frequency and volume chart (Grade B). DO induced by BOO generally improves postoperatively, but DO without accompanying BOO often persists after surgery,121 or DO may arise independently as a result of the surgery.124 DU is present in 20–30% of men with LUTS,125 and the surgical outcome for these patients is poor.119 In a long-term postoperative study, BOO recurred in only 12.4% of patients treated with TURP, whereas DU was present in 36.5% of the men complaining of LUTS after surgery.124 Nocturia is a symptom with low specificity for BPH126 that is often caused by polyuria. Thus, the postoperative recurrence of LUTS is not necessarily attributable to BOO, but rather to overlooked or developing DO, DU, or polyuria.

CQ 10: What treatments are recommended for urinary retention by BPH?

Either insertion of an indwelling catheter or intermittent catheterization should be indicated. After this, catheter removal may be attempted after administration of an α1-adrenoceptor antagonist. Surgical intervention is likely to be necessary for a large prostate (Grade B). It is recommended to use intermittent catheterization only for urinary retention due to transient causes (e.g. the use of anaesthetic or α-sympathomimetic agents) and an α1-adrenoceptor antagonist at an attempt to remove the indwelling catheter.3 A retrospective survey on 248 patients in whom indwelling catheters were successfully removed after treatment with an α1-adrenoceptor antagonist, with a mean follow-up period of 33 months, reported a failure rate of 11.6, 14.3, 28.4, and 50.5% at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months, respectively.127 Multivariate analysis revealed a prostatic volume ≥50 mL, and a PSA level ≥10 ng/mL at the time of acute urinary retention, as predictive factors for surgical intervention. Another multivariate analysis of 72 patients showed that those with PSA >2.9 ng/mL, a large prostate size on digital rectal examination, and a volume drained at the time of catheterization >1000 mL, were best managed by surgical intervention.128

CQ 11: What measures are recommended for men with symptomatic BPH in whom usual treatments are not indicated due to deteriorating activities in daily life?

Urethral stents, intermittent catheterizaion, and indwelling urethral or suprapubic catheters should be considered as management options for such men (Grade B). Although stenting is an effective, less invasive procedure for improving symptoms,87 its utility is limited by the associated complications, including encrustation, discomfort or urethral pain, UTI, bleeding, and stent migration.4,88,89,129,130 Intermittent self-catheterization is safe and useful with minimal complications,57 although it requires manual dexterity. Urethral indwelling catheters are useful for prompt management, yet are associated with inevitable UTI, urethral erosion, strictures, and fistula formation. Suprapubic cystostomy is an alternative measure that avoids the complications caused by indwelling urethral catheters.

CQ 12: What therapeutic strategies are recommended to avoid sexual dysfunction as an adverse event?

Surgical treatment or α1-adrenoceptor antagonists are recommended to avoid erectile dysfunction (ED). To prevent ejaculatory dysfunction, surgical treatment, α1A-adrenoceptor antagonists, 5α-reductase inhibitors or anti-androgens should be avoided. To retain libido, 5α-reductase inhibitors or anti-androgens especially should be avoided (Grade B). ED as an adverse event is rare for surgery (0–12.5%),4,96 and is comparable with placebo for α1-adrenoceptor antagonists.4 Ejaculatory dysfunction has been reported to be 50–80% post-surgery,3,4,95,96 and 1.6 to 22.3% in Japanese men using α1-adrenoceptor antagonists, particularly α1A-adrenoceptor antagonists.29,131 Decreased libido and ejaculatory dysfunction are observed in men taking 5α-reductase inhibitors or anti-androgens,37,97 with more pronounced in the latter.122

Conflict of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References

Yukio Homma received research grants from Astellas, Asuka, DaiichiSankyo, Ono, Pfizer, and Takeda, and received lecture fees from Astellas and GlaxoSmithKline; Momokazu Gotoh received research grants from Astellas, DaiichiSankyo, GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda, and received lecture fees from Astellas; Osamu Yokoyama received research grants from AsahiKasei, Astellas, GlaxoSmithKline, Ono and Pfizer, and received lecture fees from Astellas, Kissei and Ono; Naoya Masumori received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline; Akihiro Kawauchi has no conflict of interest; Tomonori Yamanishi has no conflict of interest; Osamu Ishizuka received research grants from Asahi Kasei; Narihito Seki received research grants from Astellas and Kyorin, and received lecture fees from Astellas; Toshiyki Kamoto has no conflict of interest; Atsushi Nagai received research grants from Kissei and Pfizer; Seiichiro Ozono received lecture fees from Astellas. Funding of the committee was provided by The Japanese Urological Association.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methodology
  5. Algorithm
  6. Definition of BPH
  7. Epidemiology and natural history of BPH
  8. Pathophysiology
  9. Diagnosis
  10. Treatment
  11. Surgical treatment
  12. BPH treatment and sexual function
  13. Clinical study
  14. Conflict of interest
  15. References
  • 1
    The Research Group on the Standardization of Urological Treatment. EBM-Based Guidelines for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Jiho, Tokyo, 2001. (In Japanese.)
  • 2
    Homma Y, Araki I, Igawa Y et al. Clinical guideline for male lower urinary tract symptoms. Int. J. Urol. 2009; 16: 77590.
  • 3
    A Guideline on the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). American Urological Association 2010 [Cited 31 May 2010.] Available from URL: http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-guidelines.cfm
  • 4
    EAU Guidelines on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. [Cited 31 May 2010.] Available from URL: http://www.uroweb.org/fileadmin/tx_eauguidelines/2009/Full/BPH_2009.pdf
  • 5
    McConnell J, Abrams P, Denis L, Khoury S, Roehrborn C (eds) Male Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction. Evaluation and Management. Editions 21, Paris, 2006.
  • 6
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2002; 21: 16778.
  • 7
    Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J. Urol. 1984; 132: 4749.
  • 8
    Tsukamoto T, Kumamoto Y, Masumori N et al. Prevalence of prostatism in Japanese men in a community-based study with comparison to a similar American study. J. Urol. 1995; 154: 3915.
  • 9
    Masumori N, Tsukamoto T, Kumamoto Y et al. Japanese men have smaller prostate volumes but comparable urinary flow rates relative to American men: results of community based studies in 2 countries. J. Urol. 1996; 155: 13247.
  • 10
    Masumori N, Tsukamoto T, Rhodes T, Girman CJ. Natural history of lower urinary tract symptoms in men: results of a longitudinal community-based study in Japan. Urology 2003; 61: 95660.
  • 11
    Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Lieber M et al. Serum prostate specific antigen concentration is a powerful predictor of acute urinary retention and need for surgery in men with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia. PLESS Study Group. Urology 1999; 53: 47380.
  • 12
    Crawford ED, Wilson SS, McConnell JD et al. Baseline factors as predictors of clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia in men treated with placebo. J. Urol. 2006; 175: 14227.
  • 13
    McNeal J. Pathology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Insight into etiology. Urol. Clin. North Am. 1990; 17: 47786.
  • 14
    Nickel JC, Roehrborn CG, O'Leary MP, Bostwick DG, Somerville MC, Rittmaster RS. The relationship between prostate inflammation and lower urinary tract symptoms: examination of baseline data from the REDUCE trial. Eur. Urol. 2008; 54: 137984.
  • 15
    Yokoyama O, Yusup A, Oyama N, Aoki Y, Miwa Y, Akino H. Improvement of bladder storage function by tamsulosin depends on suppression of C-fiber urethral afferent activity in rats. J. Urol. 2007; 177: 7715.
  • 16
    Abrams PH, Farrar DJ, Turner-Warwick RT, Whiteside CG, Feneley RCL. The results of prostatectomy: a symptomatic and urodynamic analysis of 152 patients. J. Urol. 1979; 121: 6402.
  • 17
    Azadzoi KM, Radisavljevic ZM, Golabek T, Yalla SV, Siroky MB. Oxidative modification of mitochondrial integrity and nerve fiber density in the ischemic overactive bladder. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 3629.
  • 18
    Speakman MJ, Brading AF, Gilpin CJ, Dixon JS, Gilpin SA, Gosling JA. Bladder outflow obstruction: a cause of denervation supersensitivity. J. Urol. 1987; 138: 14616.
  • 19
    Birder LA, de Groat WC. Mechanisms of disease: involvement of the urothelium in bladder dysfunction. Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 2007; 4: 4654.
  • 20
    Yokoyama O, Nagano K, Kawaguchi K, Ueki O, Ohkawa M. The influence of prostatic urethral anesthesia in overactive detrusor in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J. Urol. 1994; 151: 15546.
  • 21
    Homma Y, Yoshida M, Yamanishi T, Gotoh M. Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptom score (CLSS) questionnaire: a reliable tool in the overall assessment of lower urinary tract symptoms. Int. J. Urol. 2008; 15: 81620.
  • 22
    Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O'Leary MP et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J. Urol. 1992; 148: 154957.
  • 23
    Homma Y, Yoshida M, Seki N et al. Symptom assessment tool for overactive bladder syndrome: overactive bladder symptom score. Urology 2006; 68: 31823.
  • 24
    Gupta A, Aragaki C, Gotoh M et al. Relationship between prostate specific antigen and indexes of prostate volume in Japanese men. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 5036.
  • 25
    Tsukamoto T, Endo Y, Narita M. Efficacy and safety of dutasteride in Japanese men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int. J. Urol. 2009; 16: 74550.
  • 26
    Djavan B, Marberger M. A meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction. Eur. Urol. 1999; 36: 113.
  • 27
    Kawabe K, Ueno A, Takimoto Y, Aso Y, Kato H, YM617 Clinical Study Group. Use of an α1-blocker, YM617, in the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy. J. Urol. 1990; 144: 90812.
  • 28
    Yamaguchi O, Fukaya Y, Shiraiwa Y et al. Clinical evaluation of naftopidil (KT-611) in micturition disorder associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a doubleblind comparative study using prazosin hydrochloride as a comparator. Journal of Clinical Therapeutics and Medicine 1992; 8: 699722. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 29
    Kawabe K, Yoshida M. Homma Y, Silodosin Clinical Study Group. Silodosin, a new α1A-adrenoceptor-selective antagonist for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study in Japanese men. BJU Int. 2006; 98: 101924.
  • 30
    Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Nickel JC, Hoefner K, Andriole G, ARIA3001, ARIA3002, and ARIA3003 Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of a dual inhibitor of 5-alpha-reductase types 1 and 2(dutasteride) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2002; 60: 43441.
  • 31
    Gormley GJ, Stoner E, Bruskewitz RC et al. The effect of finasteride in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finasteride Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992; 327: 118591.
  • 32
    Yoshida H, Haraguchi C, Ogawa Y et al. Clinical effects of chlormadinone acetate (PROSTAL®) on patients with prostatic hypertrophy–with reference to estimation of size and weight of prostate by means of transrectal ultrasonotomography. Acta Urol. Jpn. 1983; 29: 141926. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 33
    Aso Y, Homma Y, Kumamoto Y et al. Phase III study of 5α-reductase inhibitor, MK-906 in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comparative double blind study with chlormadinone acetate long acting tablets. Jpn. J. Urol. Surg. 1995; 8: 23756. (In Japanese.)
  • 34
    Aso Y, Homma Y, Kumamoto Y et al. Phase III study of 5α-reductase inhibitor, MK-906 in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (PART 2) – study of equivalence of clinical efficacy with chlormadinone acetate long acting tablets. Jpn. J. Urol. Surg. 1996; 9: 33542. (In Japanese.)
  • 35
    Shida K, Koyanagi T, Kawakura K et al. Clinical effects of allylestrenol on benign prostatic hypertrophy by double-blind method. Acta Urol. Jpn. 1986; 32: 62548. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 36
    Kumamoto Y, Yamaguchi Y, Sato Y et al. Effects of anti-androgens on sexual function double-blind comparative studies on allylestrenol and chlormadinone acetate part I: nocturnal penile tumescence monitoring. Acta Urol. Jpn. 1990; 36: 21326. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 37
    Kumamoto Y, Yamaguchi Y, Sato Y et al. Effects of anti-androgens on sexual function double-blind comparative studies on allylestrenol and chlormadinone acetate part II: self-assessment questionnaire method. Acta Urol. Jpn. 1990; 36: 22744. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 38
    Nakano H, Hiromoto N, Nihira H et al. Clinical effect of Eviprostat in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia – a double-blind study. Acta Urol. Jpn. 1975; 21: 43352. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 39
    Sasaki S, Maekawa M, Kishimoto T et al. Effectiveness of Eviprostat for benign prostatic hyperplasia – evaluation by means of double blind method.Nishinihon J. Urol. 1975; 37: 64760. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 40
    Miwa K, Moriyama Y, Masue T et al. The efficacy of Eviprostat® for pelvic discomfort in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients. Jpn. J. Urol. Surg. 2008; 21: 80714. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 41
    Naruoka T, Suzuki Y, Furuta A, Endo K, Sugaya S, Egawa S. Evaluation of supplemental administration of Eviprostat in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with persistent symptoms following treatment with α1-adrenoceptor blocker. Acta Urol. Jpn. 2008; 54: 3414. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 42
    MacDonald R, Ishani A, Rutks I, Wilt TJ. A systematic review of Cernilton for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2000; 85: 83641.
  • 43
    Yamaguchi O, Shiraiwa Y, Kobayashi M et al. Clinical evaluation of effects of prazosin in patients with benign prostatic obstruction. A double-blind, multiinstitutional, Paraprost-controlled study. Urol. Int. 1990; 45 (Suppl 1): 406.
  • 44
    Ishizuka O, Yamanishi T, Gotoh M et al. LUTS: new evidence-clinical efficacy of Kampo formulations focusing on goshajinkigan. Urology View 2009; 7: 814. (In Japanese.)
  • 45
    Fujiuchi Y, Watanabe A, Fuse H. Effect of goshajinkigan on storage symptoms in prostatic disease. Fundamental researches of Chinese herbal medicine for voiding dysfunction and its future aspects. Acta Urol. Jpn. 2008; 54: 4636. (In Japanese with an English abstract.)
  • 46
    Dahm TL, Ostri P, Kristensen JK et al. Flavoxate treatment of micturition disorders accompanying benign prostatic hypertrophy: a double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter investigation. Urol. Int. 1995; 55: 2058.
  • 47
    Roehrborn CG, Abrams P, Rovner ES, Kaplan SA, Herschorn S, Guan Z. Efficacy and tolerability of tolterodine extended-release in men with overactive bladder and urgency urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2006; 97: 10036.
  • 48
    Kaplan SA, Roehrborn CG, Rovner ES, Carlsson M, Bavendam T, Guan Z. Tolterodine and tamsulosin for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms and overactive bladder. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 231928.
  • 49
    Abrams P, Kaplan SA, DeKoning Gans HJ, Millard R. Safety and tolerability of tolterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder in men with bladder outlet obstruction. J. Urol. 2006; 175: 9991004.
  • 50
    Tanaka Y, Masumori N, Itoh N, Furuya S, Nishizawa O, Tsukamoto T. Symptomatic and urodynamic improvement by oral distigmine bromide in poor voiders after transurethral resection of the prostate. Urology 2001; 57: 2704.
  • 51
    Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Kamai T et al. Combination of a cholinergic drug and an α-blocker is more effective than monotherapy for the treatment of voiding difficulty in patients with underactive detrusor. Int. J. Urol. 2004; 11: 8896.
  • 52
    Shah PJR, Abrams PH, Choa RG et al. Distigmine bromide and post-prostatectomy voiding. Br. J. Urol. 1983; 55: 22932.
  • 53
    McVary KT, Monnig W, Camps JL Jr, Young JM, Tseng LJ, van den Ende G. Sildenafil citrate improves erectile function and urinary symptoms in men with erectile dysfunction and lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized, double-blind trial. J. Urol. 2007; 177: 10717.
  • 54
    Roehrborn CG, McVary KT, Elion-Mboussa A, Virktrup L. Tadalafil administered once daily for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a dose finding study. J. Urol. 2008; 180: 122834.
  • 55
    Porst H, McVary KT, Montorsi F et al. Effects of once-daily tadalafil on erectile function in men with erectile dysfunction and signs and symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur. Urol. 2009; 56: 72736.
  • 56
    Netto NR Jr, de Lima ML, Netto MR, D'Ancona CAL. Evaluation of patients with bladder outlet obstruction and mild international prostate symptom score followed up by watchful waiting. Urology 1999; 53: 31416.
  • 57
    Turi MH, Hanif S, Fasih Q, Shaikh MA. Proportion of complications in patients practicing clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC) vs indwelling catheter. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2006; 56: 4014.
  • 58
    Ghalayini IF, Al-Ghazo MA, Pickard RS. A prospective randomized trial comparing transurethral prostatic resection and clean intermittent self-catheterization in men with chronic urinary retention. BJU Int. 2005; 96: 937.
  • 59
    Thiel DD, Petrou SP. Electroresection and open surgery. Urol. Clin. North Am. 2009; 36: 46170.
  • 60
    Noguera RS, Rodríguez RC. Open adenomectomy: past, present and future. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2008; 18: 3440.
  • 61
    Madersbacher S, Lackner J, Brössner C et al. Reoperation, myocardial infarction and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy: a nation-wide, long-term analysis of 23 123 cases. Eur. Urol. 2005; 47: 499504.
  • 62
    Yang Q, Peters TJ, Donovan JL, Wilt TJ, Abrams P. Transurethral incision compared with transurethral resection of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J. Urol. 2001; 165: 152632.
  • 63
    Tkocz M, Prajsner A. Comparison of long-term results of transurethral incision of the prostate with transurethral resection of the prostate, in patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2002; 21: 11216.
  • 64
    Autorino R, de Sio M, D'Armiento M. Bipolar plasmakinetic technology for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: evidence beyond marketing hype? BJU Int. 2007; 100: 9835.
  • 65
    Mamoulakis C, Ubbink DT, de la Rosette JJMCH. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur. Urol. 2009; 56: 798809.
  • 66
    Seki N, Tatsugami K, Naito S. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: comparison of outcomes according to prostate size in 97 Japanese patients. J. Endourol. 2007; 21: 1926.
  • 67
    Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, Bansal MB. Peri-operative complications of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: experience in the first 280 patients, and a review of literature. BJU Int. 2007; 100: 94101.
  • 68
    Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur. Urol. 2008; 53: 1608.
  • 69
    Horasanli K, Silay MS, Altay B, Tanriverdi O, Sarica K, Miroglu C. Photoselective potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 70 mL: a short-term prospective randomized trial. Urology 2008; 71: 24751.
  • 70
    Tasci AI, Tugcu V, Sahin S, Zorluoglu F. Rapid communication: photoselective vaporization of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the large prostate: a prospective nonrandomized bicenter trial with 2-year follow-up. J. Endourol. 2008; 22: 34753.
  • 71
    Skolarikos A, Papachristou C, Athanasiadis G, Chalikopoulos D, Deliveliotis C, Alivizatos G. Eighteen-month results of a randomized prospective study comparing transurethral photoselective vaporization with transvesical open enucleation for prostatic adenomas greater than 80 cc. J. Endourol. 2008; 22: 233340.
  • 72
    Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM et al. Randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2006; 68: 10204.
  • 73
    Hiraoka Y, Shimizu Y, Iwamoto K, Takahashi H, Abe H. Trial of complete detachment of the whole prostate lobes in benign prostate hyperplasia by transurethral enucleation of the prostate. Urol. Int. 2007; 79: 504.
  • 74
    Zhao Z, Zeng G, Zhong W, Mai Z, Zeng S, Tao X. A prospective, randomised trial comparing plasmakinetic enucleation to standard transurethral resection of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: three-year follow-up results. Eur. Urol. 2010; 58: 7528.
  • 75
    Kursh ED, Concepcion R, Chan S, Hudson P, Ratner M, Eyre R. Interstitial laser coagulation versus transurethral prostate resection for treating benign prostatic obstruction: a randomized trial with 2-year follow-up. Urology 2003; 61: 5738.
  • 76
    Terada N, Arai Y, Okubo K et al. Interstitial laser coagulation for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: long-term follow-up. Int. J. Urol. 2004; 11: 97882.
  • 77
    Daehlin L, Frugard J. Interstitial laser coagulation in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction from benign prostatic hyperplasia: long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2007; 100: 8993.
  • 78
    Nakamura K, Baba S, Saito S, Tachibana M, Murai M. High-intensity focused ultrasound energy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: clinical response at 6 months to treatment using Sonablate 200. J. Endourol. 1997; 11: 197201.
  • 79
    Madersbacher S, Schatzl G, Djavan B, Stulnig T, Marberger M. Long-term outcome of transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur. Urol. 2000; 37: 68794.
  • 80
    Zlotta AR, Giannakopoulos X, Maehlum O, Ostrem T, Schulman CC. Long-term evaluation of transurethral needle ablation of the prostate (TUNA) for treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: clinical outcome up to five years from three centers. Eur. Urol. 2003; 44: 8993.
  • 81
    Hill B, Belville W, Bruskewitz R et al. Transurethral needle ablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 233640.
  • 82
    Chapple CR, Issa MM, Woo H. Transurethral needle ablation (TUNA). A critical review of radiofrequency thermal therapy in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur. Urol. 1999; 35: 11928.
  • 83
    de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP, Pace G et al. Efficacy and safety of the new high-energy 30-min transurethral microwave thermotherapy: results of 1-year follow-up in a multicenter study. Tech. Urol. 2000; 6: 27145.
  • 84
    Mattiasson A, Wagrell L, Schelin S et al. Five-year follow-up of feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Urology 2007; 69: 916.
  • 85
    Wagrell L, Schelin S, Nordling J et al. Three-year follow-up of feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Urology 2004; 64: 698702.
  • 86
    Gravas S, Laguna P, Kiemeney LALM, de la Rosette JJMCH. Durability of 30-min high-energy transurethral microwave therapy for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a study of 213 patients with and without urinary retention. Urology 2007; 69: 8548.
  • 87
    Masood S, Djaladat H, Kouriefs C, Keen M, Palmer JH. The 12-year outcome analysis of an endourethral wallstent for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2004; 94: 12714.
  • 88
    Perry MJ, Roodhouse AJ, Gidlow AB et al. Thermo-expandable intraprostatic stents in bladder outlet obstruction: an 8-year study. BJU Int. 2002; 90: 21623.
  • 89
    Gesenberh A, Sintermann R. Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in high risk patients: long-term experience with the Memotherm stent. J. Urol. 1998; 160: 726.
  • 90
    Goya N, Ishikawa N, Ito F, Kobayashi C, Tomizawa Y, Toma H. Transurethral ethanol injection therapy for prostatic hyperplasia: 3-year results. J. Urol. 2004; 172: 101720.
  • 91
    Sakr M, Eid A, Shoukry M, Fayed A. Transurethral ethanol injection therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia: four-year follow-up. Int. J. Urol. 2009; 16: 196201.
  • 92
    Plante MK, Marks LS, Anderson R et al. Phase I/II examination of transurethral ethanol ablation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. J. Urol. 2007; 177: 10305.
  • 93
    Brisinda G, Cadeddu F, Vanella S, Mazzeo P, Marniga G, Maria G. Relief by botulinum toxin of lower urinary tract symptoms owing to benign prostatic hyperplasia: early and long-term results. Urology 2009; 73: 904.
  • 94
    Kuo HC, Liu HT. Therapeutic effects of add-on botulinum toxin A on patients with large benign prostatic hyperplasia and unsatisfactory response to combined medical therapy. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2009; 43: 20611.
  • 95
    Jaidane M, Arfa NB, Hmida W et al. Effect of transurethral resection of the prostate on erectile function: a prospective comparative study. Int. J. Impot. Res. 2010; 22: 14651.
  • 96
    Meng F, Gao B, Fu Q et al. Change of sexual function in patients before and after Ho:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate. J. Androl. 2007; 28: 25961.
  • 97
    Andriole GL, Kirby R. Safety and tolerability of the dual 5α-reductase inhibitor dutasteride in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur. Urol. 2003; 44: 828.
  • 98
    Yoshida K, Negishi S, Ishii Y et al. Clinical study of antiandrogen therapy of the patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparative studies of chlormadinone acetate (CMA) between 25 mg tablets twice a day and 50 mg long acting tablet once a day. Shinryo to Shinyaku 1995; 32: 126979. (In Japanese.)
  • 99
    Homma Y, Kawabe K, Tsukamoto T et al. Estimate criteria for diagnosis and severity in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int. J. Urol. 1996; 3: 2616.
  • 100
    Yamaguchi O, Nishizawa O, Takeda M et al. Clinical Guideline for Overactive Bladder, revised edition. Blackwell, Tokyo, 2007.
  • 101
    Homma Y, Kawabe K, Tsukamoto T et al. Estimate criteria for efficacy of treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int. J. Urol. 1996; 3: 26773.
  • 102
    Abrams P, Chapple C, Khoury S et al. Evaluation and treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in older men. J. Urol. 2009; 181: 177987.
  • 103
    Marks LS, Roehrborn CG, Wolford E, Wilson TH. The effect of dutasteride on the peripheral and transition zones of the prostate and the value of the transition zone index in predicting treatment response. J. Urol. 2007; 177: 140813.
  • 104
    Koch WF, Ezz el Din K, de Wildt MJAM, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH. The outcome of renal ultrasound in the assessment of 556 consecutive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J. Urol. 1996; 155: 1869.
  • 105
    de la Rosette JJMCH, Kortman BBM, Rossi C, Sonke GS, Floratos DL, Kiemeney LALM. Long-term risk of re-treatment of patients using α-blockers for lower urinary tract symptoms. J. Urol. 2002; 167: 17349.
  • 106
    Yamanishi T, Tatsumiya K, Furuya N et al. Long-term efficacy of tamsulosin in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia in real-life practice. UroToday Int. J. 2009; 2: doi:10.3834/uij.1944-5784.2009.02.01
  • 107
    Masumori N, Hashimoto J, Itoh N, Tsukamoto T, Sapporo Medical University Naftopidil Study Group. Short-term efficacy and long-term compliance/treatment failure of the α1 blocker naftopidil for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2007; 41: 4229.
  • 108
    Kawachi Y, Sakurai T, Sugimura S et al. Long-term treatment and prognostic factors of α1-blockers for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a pilot study comparing naftopidil and tamsulosin hydrochloride. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2010; 44: 3845.
  • 109
    Lee JY, Kim HW, Lee SJ, Koh JS, Suh HJ, Chancellor MB. Comparison of doxazosin with or without tolterodine in men with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction and an overactive bladder. BJU Int. 2004; 94: 81720.
  • 110
    Blake-James BT, Rashidian A, Ikeda Y, Emberton M. The role of anticholinergics in men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systemic review and metaanalysis. BJU Int. 2007; 99: 8596.
  • 111
    Chapple C, Herschorn S, Abrams P, Sun F, Brodsky M, Guan Z. Tolterodine treatment improves storage symptoms suggestive of overactive bladder in men treated with α-blockers. Eur. Urol. 2009; 56: 53443.
  • 112
    Kaplan SA, McCammon K, Fincher R, Fakhoury A, He W. Safety and tolerability of solifenacin addon therapy to α-blocker treated men with residual urgency and frequency. J. Urol. 2009; 182: 282530.
  • 113
    Nishizawa O, Yamaguchi O, Takeda M. Yokoyama O, for the TAABO Study Group. Randomized controlled trial to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia with overactive bladder using an alpha-blocker combined with anticholinergics. LUTS 2011; 3: 2935.
  • 114
    Yamaguchi O, Kakizaki H, Homma Y et al. Solifenacin as add-on therapy for overactive bladder symptoms in men treated for lower urinary tract symptoms – ASSIST, randomized controlled study. Urology 2011; 78: 12633.
  • 115
    Roehrborn CG, Siami P, Barkin J et al. The effects of combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin on clinical outcomes in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from the CombAT study. Eur. Urol. 2010; 57: 12331.
  • 116
    Barkin J, Guimaraes M, Jacobi G, Pushkar D, Taylor S. van Viersen Trip OB. Alpha-blocker therapy can be withdrawn in the majority of men following initial combination therapy with the dual 5α-reductase inhibitor dutasteride. Eur. Urol. 2003; 44: 4616.
  • 117
    McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Bautista OM et al. The long-term effect of doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy on the clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003; 349: 238798.
  • 118
    Chung B-H, Roehrborn CG, Siami P et al. Efficacy and safety of dutasteride, tamsulosin and their combination in a subpopulation of the CombAT study: 2-year results in Asian men with moderate-to-severe BPH. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2009; 12: 1529.
  • 119
    Thomas AW, Cannon A, Bartlett E, Ellis-Jones J, Abrams P. The natural history of lower urinary tract dysfunction in men: the influence of detrusor underactivity on the outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate with a minimum 10-year urodynamic follow-up. BJU Int. 2004; 93: 74550.
  • 120
    Van Venrooij GE, von Melick HHE, Boon TA. Comparison of outcomes of transurethral prostate resection in urodynamically unobstructed or equivocal men. Urology 2003; 62: 6726.
  • 121
    Machino R, Kakizaki H, Ameda K et al. Detrusor instability with equivocal obstruction: a predictor of unfavorable symptomatic outcomes after transurethral prostatectomy. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2002; 21: 4449.
  • 122
    Seki N, Takei M, Yamaguchi A, Naito S. Analysis of prognostic factors regarding the outcome after a transurethral resection for symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2006; 25: 42832.
  • 123
    Homma Y. Pressure flow studies in benign prostatic hyperplasia: to do or not to do for the patient? BJU Int. 2001; 87: 1923.
  • 124
    Thomas AW, Cannon A, Bartlett E, Ellis-Jones J, Abrams P. The natural history of lower urinary tract dysfunction in men: minimum 10-year urodynamic follow-up of transurethral resection of prostate for bladder outlet obstruction. J. Urol. 2005; 174: 188791.
  • 125
    van Venrooij GE, Boon TA, de Gier RP. International prostate symptom score and quality of life assessment versus urodynamic parameters in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia symptoms. J. Urol. 1995; 153: 151619.
  • 126
    Homma Y, Yamaguchi T, Kondo Y, Horie S, Takahashi S, Kitamura T. Significance of nocturia in the International Prostate Symptom Score for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J. Urol. 2002; 167: 1726.
  • 127
    Lo KL, Chan MCK, Wong A, Hou SM, Ng CF. Long-term outcome of patients with a successful trial without catheter, after treatment with an alpha-adrenergic receptor blocker for acute urinary retention caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2010; 42: 712.
  • 128
    Daly P, Connolly S, Rogers E, Sweeney P. Management outcome of acute urinary retention. Model of prediction. Urol. Int. 2009; 83: 3943.
  • 129
    Braf Z, Chen J, Sofer M et al. Intraprostatic metal stents (Prostakath and Urospiral): more than 6 years' clinical experience with 110 patients. J. Endourol. 1996; 10: 5558.
  • 130
    Vanderbrink BA, Rastinehad AR, Badlani GH. Prostatic stents for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2007; 17: 16.
  • 131
    Masumori N, Tsukamoto T, Iwasawa A et al. Ejaculatory disorders caused by alpha-1 blockers for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of naftopidil and tamsulosin in a randomized multicenter study. Urol. Int. 2009; 83: 4954.