Türkiye’deki Ürologların Benign Prostat Hiperplazisi Tedavisindeki Güncel Yaklaşımları

Abstract

Giriş: Benign prostat hiperplazisi (BPH) hayatı tehdit edici bir hastalık olmasa da uyku kalitesini, psikolojik durumu, günlük aktiviteleri ve seksüel durumu etkileyerek depresyon ve düşük yaşam kalitesi gibi önemli morbiditelere neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada ülkemizde aktif çalışan Üroloji hekimlerinin BPH tanı ve tedavisindeki eğilimlerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Güncel Üroloji kılavuzları temel alınarak BPH tanı ve tedavisini kapsayan online web tabanlı 33 soruluk anket oluşturuldu. Türk Üroloji Derneği’ne üye olan ve aktif çalışmaya devam eden hekimlere Ekim 2016 ve Ocak 2017 tarihleri arasında e-mail yoluyla ankete katılım daveti gönderildi. Çalışmaya üroloji asistanları ve emekli ürologlar dahil edilmedi.

Bulgular: Çalışmamızda 200 Ürolog 33 sorudan oluşan çoktan seçmeli anketi tamamlamıştır. Katılımcıların %60,5’i uzman, %14’ü yardımcı doçent, %12,5’i doçent ve %13’ü profesör statüsündeydi. Katılımcılar alt üriner sistem semptomları (AÜSS) ile başvuran hastaların %19,5’ine International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) sorgulama formunu her zaman uygularken, digital rektal muayeneyi (DRM) her zaman uygulayanların sayısı ise %39’du. Katılımcılara BPH tedavisinde en çok tercih ettikleri alfa bloker sorgulandığında, %33’ü tamsulosin cevabını verirken en çok yan etkinin silodosin ile görüldüğünü belirtti. Katılımcıların %65,5’i BPH’nın endoskopik cerrahi tedavisinde en çok monopolar sistemleri uyguladıklarını belirtirken, %62,2’si ise en çok bipolar sistemi tercih ettiklerini belirtti. En az uygulanan ve tercih edilen endoskopik yöntemin ise Diod lazer sistemi olduğu saptandı.

Sonuç: Günümüzde endoskopik BPH tedavisinde lazer yöntemler popülerliğini kaybetmiş ve bipolar teknolojiler ise en çok tercih edilen yöntemler haline gelmiştir. Alfa bloker ise BPH’nın medikal tedavisinde hala ilk seçenek olarak tercih edilmektedir. 

Keywords

• BPH
• AÜSS
• Ürolog

The Current Approaches of Urologist in Treatment of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia in Turkey

Abstract

Objective: Although benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is not a life threatening disease, it affects sleep quality, psychological state, daily activities and sexuality, leading to significant morbidities such as depression and low quality of life. In this study, we aimed to investigate the tendency of urologists in our country in the diagnosis and treatment of BPH.

Material and Methods: Based on current Urology guidelines, a web-based 33-items questionnaire including BPH diagnosis and treatment was created. Between October 2016 and January 2017, Urologists who are members of the Turkish Urological Association and working actively have been invited to participate by e-mail. Urology residents and retired urologists were not included in the study.


Results: In our study, 200 Urologists completed a multiple-choice questionnaire consisting of 33 questions. The participants; 60.5% were specialist, 14% were assistant professors, 12.5% were associate professors and 13% were professors. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was always performed by %19.5 of participants and digital rectal examination(DRE) was performed by %39 of participants for all the admissions with LUTS. Tamsulasin was the most preferred alfa blocker with the rate of %33 and silodosin was the most accused alfa blocker for side effects by the participants. Monopolar systems were the most used method for surgeries with the rate of %65,5 but bipolar systems were the most preferred method for endoscopic BPH surgical treatments with the rate of %62,2. Diod laser was the least used and preferred method for endoscopic BPH treatment.

Conclusion: Laser technology has lost its popularity in recent years and bipolar technologies has become the most preferred method for the endoscopic BPH treatments. Alfa blockers are still used as a first choice for BPH medical treatment. 

Keywords

• BPH
• LUTS
• Urologist

References

1. 1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al. The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology 2003;61:37-49.
2. 2. Maserejian NN, Chen S, Chiu GR et al. Incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms in a population-based study of men and women. Urology 2013;82:560-4.
3. 3. Roehrborn C. Pathology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Impot Res 2008;20 Suppl 3:11-8.
4. 4. Da Silva FC, Marquis P, Deschaseaux P et al. Relative importance of sexuality and quality of life in patients with prostatic symptoms. Eur Urol 1997;31:272-80.
5. 5. Parsons JK. Benign prostatic hyperplasia and male lower urinary tract symptoms: epidemiology and risk factors. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 2010;5:212-218.
6. 6. Parsons JK, Mougey J, Lambert L, et al. Lower urinary tract symptoms increase the risk of falls in older men. BJU Int 2009;104:63-8.
7. 7. Amerson D, editor UroLift for BPH: changing the game in BPH care. AACU State Advocacy Conference 2015.
8. 8. Richie JP, Catalona WJ, Ahmann FR, et al. Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology 1993;42:365-74.

9. 9. Cooner WH, Mosley B, Rutherford CL, et al. Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1990;143:1146-52; discussion 1152-4.
10. 10. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994;151:1283-90.
11. 11. Chodak GW, Schoenberg HW. Early detection of prostate cancer by routine screening. JAMA 1984;252:3261-4.
12. 12. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016;14:509-19.
13. 13. Halpern JA, Oromendia C, Shoag JE, et al. Utility of Digital Rectal Examination as an Adjunct to Prostate Specific Antigen in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2018;199:947-953.
14. 14. Oh CY, Lee SH, Yoo SJ, Chung BH. Korean urologist’s view of practice patterns in diagnosis and management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a nationwide survey. Yonsei Med J 2010;51:248-52.
15. 15. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, Bin L, Oesterling JE. A nationwide survey of practicing urologists: current management of benign prostatic hyperplasia and clinically localized prostate cancer. JUrol 1997;158:488-91; discussion 492.
16. 16. Gravas S, Bach T, Drake M, et al. EAU Guidelines on the management of non-neurogenice male LUTS. EAU Guidelines published at the 32nd EAU Annual Congress London.” EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands 2017.
17. 17. Wu N, Sun J, Yu P, Sun Z. Chinese urologists’ views of practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a nationwide survey. Int Neurourol J 2012;16:191-5.
18. 18. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, et al. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2011;185:1793-803.
19. 19. Errando-Smet C, Müller-Arteaga C, Hernández M, Roset M. Diagnosis and treatment of male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms in Spain - The MERCURY Study. Do urologists follow the recommendations of the European guidelines? Actas Urol Esp 2018;42:323-330.
20. 20. Kulaksızoğlu H, Akand M, Kılıç Ö, et al Prostate myths: What is the prostate awareness in the general male population in Turkey? Turk J Urol 2014;40:150-5.
21. 21. Moon KH, Song PH, Yang DY, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the Selective α1A-Adrenoceptor Blocker Silodosin for Severe Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Associated With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Prospective, Single-Open-Label, Multicenter Study in Korea. Korean J Urol 2014;55:335-40.
22. 22. Chapple C, Montorsi F, Tammela T, et al. Silodosin therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with suspected benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-and active-controlled clinical trial performed in Europe. Eur Urol 2011;59:342-52.
23. 23. Burke N, Whelan JP, Goeree L, et al. Systematic review and meta- analysis of transurethral resection of the prostate versus minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. Urology 2010;75:1015-22.
24. 24. Tang Y, Li J, Pu C, et al. Bipolar transurethral resection versus monopolar transurethral resection for benign prostatic hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 2014;28:1107-14.
25. 25. Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, et al. Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 2010;58:384-97.