Xavier Biardeau1, Mohamed A Elkoushy2, Shachar Aharony1, Mostafa Elhilali2, Jacques Corcos3. 1. Department of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, 3755 Chemin de la côte Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. 2. McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, 3755 Chemin de la côte Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. jcorcosmd@yahoo.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in middle-aged men and could be consequences of multiple etiologies responsible for bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), detrusor underactivity (DUA) and/or overactive bladder. When LUTS are suggestive of BOO secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia, a surgical treatment can sometimes be consider. Even if multichannel urodynamic study (UDS) is currently the gold standard to properly assess LUTS, its use in non-neurogenic men is still a matter of controversy. Here, we aim to explore the evidence supporting or not the use of systematic multichannel UDS before considering an invasive treatment in men LUTS. METHODS: The debate was presented with a "pro and con" structure. The "pro" side supported the systematic use of a multichannel UDS before considering a surgical treatment in men LUTS. The "con" side successively refuted the "pro" side arguments. RESULTS: The "pro" side mainly based their argumentation on the poor correlation of LUTS and office-based tests with BOO or DUA. Furthermore, since a multichannel UDS could allow selecting men that will most benefit of a surgical procedure, they hypothesized that such an approach could reduce the overall morbidity rate and cost associated with. The "con" side considered that, in most cases, medical history and symptoms were reliable enough to consider surgery. Finally, they underlined the UDS limitations and the frequent lack of alternative to surgery in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized clinical trials are being conducted to compare these two approaches. Their results would help the urological community to override this debate.
PURPOSE: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in middle-aged men and could be consequences of multiple etiologies responsible for bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), detrusor underactivity (DUA) and/or overactive bladder. When LUTS are suggestive of BOO secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia, a surgical treatment can sometimes be consider. Even if multichannel urodynamic study (UDS) is currently the gold standard to properly assess LUTS, its use in non-neurogenic men is still a matter of controversy. Here, we aim to explore the evidence supporting or not the use of systematic multichannel UDS before considering an invasive treatment in men LUTS. METHODS: The debate was presented with a "pro and con" structure. The "pro" side supported the systematic use of a multichannel UDS before considering a surgical treatment in men LUTS. The "con" side successively refuted the "pro" side arguments. RESULTS: The "pro" side mainly based their argumentation on the poor correlation of LUTS and office-based tests with BOO or DUA. Furthermore, since a multichannel UDS could allow selecting men that will most benefit of a surgical procedure, they hypothesized that such an approach could reduce the overall morbidity rate and cost associated with. The "con" side considered that, in most cases, medical history and symptoms were reliable enough to consider surgery. Finally, they underlined the UDS limitations and the frequent lack of alternative to surgery in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized clinical trials are being conducted to compare these two approaches. Their results would help the urological community to override this debate.
Authors: Brian A Parsons; Elizabeth Bright; Ahmed M Shaban; Anne Whitehouse; Marcus J Drake Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Nadir I Osman; Christopher R Chapple; Paul Abrams; Roger Dmochowski; François Haab; Victor Nitti; Heinz Koelbl; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Alan J Wein Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 20.096