BACKGROUND: Previous studies noted varied adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), but studies are yet to quantify adherence to American Urological Association BPH guidelines. We studied guideline adherence in the context of a new quality improvement collaborative (QIC).
METHODS: Data were collected as part of a statewide QIC. Medical records for patients undergoing select CPT codes from January 2020 to May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed for adherence to selected BPH guidelines.
RESULTS: Most men were treated with transurethral resection of the prostate. Notably, 53.3% of men completed an IPSS and 52.3% had a urinalysis. 4.7% were counseled on behavioral modifications, 15.0% on medical therapy, and 100% on procedural options. For management, 79.4% were taking alpha-blockers and 59.8% were taking a 5-ARI. For evaluation, 57% had a PVR, 63.6% had prostate size measurement, 37.4% had uroflowmetry, and 12.3% were counseled about treatment failure. Postoperatively, 51.6% completed an IPSS, 57% had a PVR, 6.50% had uroflowmetry, 50.6% stopped their alpha-blocker, and 75.0% stopped their 5-ARI.
CONCLUSIONS: There was adherence to preoperative testing recommendations, but patient counseling was lacking in the initial work-up and preoperative evaluation. We will convey the data to key stakeholders, expand data collection to other institutions, and devise an improvement implementation plan.

Background: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has emerged as a new gold standard for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia; however, its steep learning curve hinders generalization of this technique. Therefore, there is a need for a benchtop HoLEP simulator to reduce this learning curve and provide training. We have developed a nonbiohazardous HoLEP simulator using modern education theory and validated it in a multicenter study. Materials and Methods: Six experts established key components for a HoLEP simulator through a Delphi consensus over three rounds including 250 questions. After consensus, a digital design was created and approved by experts, then used to fabricate a physical prototype using three-dimensional printing and hydrogel molding. After a process of iterative prototype testing, experts completed a survey assessing the simulator with a 5-point Likert scale for final approval. The approved model was validated with 56 expert and novice participants at seven institutions using subjective and objective performance metrics. Results: Consensus was reached on 85 of 250 questions, and experts found the physical model to adequately replicate 82.5% of required features. Objective metrics were statistically significant (p < 0.0001) when comparing experts and novices for enucleation time (37.4 ± 8.2 vs 16.7 ± 6.8 minutes), adenoma weight (79.6 ± 20.4 vs 36.2 ± 9.9 g), and complications (6 vs 22), respectively. Conclusion: We have effectively completed a multicenter study to develop and validate a nonbiohazardous benchtop simulator for HoLEP through modern education theory. A training curriculum including this simulator is currently under development.

The purpose of this American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline amendment is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based management of male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH).
The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) database to identify studies relevant to the management of BPH. The guideline was updated in 2023 to capture eligible literature published between September 2020 and October 2022. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions.
The BPH amendment resulted in changes to statements/supporting text on combination therapy, photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), laser enucleation, and prostate artery embolization (PAE). A new statement on temporary implanted prostatic devices (TIPD) was added. In addition, statements on transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) were removed and information regarding these legacy technologies was added to the background section. References and the accompanying treatment algorithms were updated to align with the updated text.
This guideline seeks to improve clinicians\' ability to evaluate and treat patients with BPH/LUTS based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements to improve patient care.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline \"2018 Standard Edition\". However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons\' surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy; the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons\' skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.

While regional monitoring of antibiotic use has decreased since 2011 by 3.2%, in some healthcare facilities a significant increase (+43%) has occurred. The purpose of this study was to assess regional antibiotic prophylaxis (ABP) compliance with national guidelines.
In 2015, 26 healthcare facilities, both public and private, were requested to audit five items: utilization of antibiotic prophylaxis, the antimicrobial agent (the molecule) administered, time between injection and incision, initial dose, number of intraoperative and postoperative additional doses. Seven surgical procedures were selected for assessment: appendicectomy (APP), cataract (CAT), cesarean section (CES), colorectal cancer surgery (CCR), hysterectomy (HYS), total hip arthroplasty (THA) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). A statistical analysis of the 2303 records included was carried out.
The general rate of antibiotic prophylaxis compliance was 64%. The antimicrobial agent used and initial dose were in compliance with the guidelines for 93% and 97.4% of cases respectively, and administration of antibiotic prophylaxis was achieved 60minutes before incision in 77.6% of the records included. Regarding gastrointestinal surgery, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was used in 32% of patients. In 26% of appendectomy files, administration occurred after incision, and one out of two files showed non-complaint perioperative and postoperative consumption.
Compliance with nationwide ABP guidelines is in need of pronounced improvement, especially with regard to time interval between injection and incision and the molecule prescribed. An action plan based on specific recommendations addressed to each establishment and an updated regionwide ABP protocol are aimed at achieving better and reduced consumption of antimicrobial agents.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this paper was to analyze the efficacy of the current modalities available to surgically treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
RESULTS: There have been significant surgical advancements for the treatment of BPH, including an increasing development and utilization of minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs). These procedures have varying outcomes that are critical to understand. In addition, MISTs have important adverse effects, though have minimized effects on sexual function when compared to more invasive surgical techniques. It is important for all urologists to be familiar with the surgical techniques available to treat BPH and the updated American Urological Association (AUA) Guidelines. Further studies evaluating efficacy, safety, and sexual functioning will help guide care in the future and evolve practice.

The diagnosis and treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement plays an important role in daily urological practice. Therefore, a targeted and resource-saving approach is essential. A rational base-line work-up of our patients provides the necessary information for obtaining the diagnosis and only needs to be expanded in individual cases. In addition to drug therapy, the modification of lifestyle and the possibility of watchful waiting must not be underestimated. Simple measures such as a timed fluid intake, double micturition in the case of residual urine development, but also bladder reconditioning can significantly improve the quality of life of our patients. Regarding surgical treatment, laser procedures have found their way into many departments and have established themselves in daily routine as a reference procedure in addition to transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P) and simple open prostatectomy. New, minimally invasive procedures-such as prostatic artery embolization (PAE), the Rezum™- (NxThera Inc., Maple-Grove, MN, USA) or the Aquabeam® (Procept, Redwood City, CA, USA) procedure, but also nonablative procedures such as iTind© (TIND, Medi-Tate, Or Akiva, Israel) or Urolift® (Neotract Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA)-offer new treatment options to those affected, with the potential to maintain patient\'s sexual function. As a result, individual risk assessment and advice on the advantages and disadvantages of all available treatment options-even more than today-will be an important part of LUTS treatment. An individual approach, similar to that used in the treatment of oncological disease, will become standard also in the treatment of benign prostatic syndrome.

暂无摘要。

Male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is common in men and can have negative effects on quality of life (QoL). It is the hope that this Guideline becomes a reference for effective evidence-based surgical management of LUTS/BPH.
The evidence team searched Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality database to identify studies indexed between January 2007-September 2017. Following initial publication, this guideline was amended in 2019 and reflects relevant literature published through January 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1 in supplementary unabridged guideline, https://www.jurology.com).
This Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding management of LUTS/BPH utilizing surgery and minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST). Additional statements are made regarding diagnostic and pre-operative tests. Clinical statements are made in comparison to what is generally accepted as the gold standard (i.e. transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP] monopolar and/or bipolar). This guideline is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm (see figure).[Figure: see text]Conclusions:The prevalence and the severity of LUTS increases as men age and is an important diagnosis in the healthcare of patients and the welfare of society. This document will undergo updating as knowledge regarding treatments and future surgical options continues to expand.

Urinary incontinence after prostate treatment (IPT) is one of the few urologic diseases that is iatrogenic, and, therefore, predictable and perhaps preventable. Evaluation of the incontinent patient, risk factors for IPT, the assessment of the patient prior to intervention, and a stepwise approach to management are covered in this guideline. Algorithms for patient evaluation, surgical management, and device failure are also provided.
This guideline was developed using a systematic review from the Mayo Clinic Evidence Based Practice Center with additional supplementation by the authors. A research librarian conducted searches from 2000 to December 21st, 2017 using Ovid, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews. Additional references through 12/31/2018 were identified.
This guideline was developed by a multi-disciplinary panel to inform clinicians on the proper assessment of patients with IPT and the safe and effective management of the condition in both surgical and non-surgical contexts. Statements guiding the clinician on proper management of device failure are also included.
Most patients who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP), and some patients who undergo radiation therapy (RT) or surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), will experience IPT. Although non-surgical options, such as pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME), can hasten continence recovery, patients who remain incontinent at one-year post-procedure, or have severe incontinence at six months, may elect to undergo surgical treatment (e.g. artificial urinary sphincter). Prior to IPT surgery, the risks, benefits, alternatives, and additional likely procedures should be discussed with the patient.