Advertisement

Der Urologe

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 271–283 | Cite as

Hartnäckige Mythen zum Thema BPS – und was davon wirklich stimmt!

  • M. OelkeEmail author
  • T. Bschleipfer
  • K. Höfner
Leitthema
  • 66 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Das benigne Prostatasyndrom (BPS) ist die vierthäufigste und fünfteuerste Erkrankung von Männern ≥50 Jahre. Obwohl die meisten Urologen zahlreiche Patienten mit BPS behandeln und evidenzbasierte Leitlinien zur Diagnostik und Therapie des BPS vorliegen, halten sich noch zahlreiche Mythen hartnäckig in der Urologie, insbesondere zur Pathophysiologie.

Ziel der Arbeit

Nennung gängiger BPS-Mythen und Darstellung der korrekten Terminologie sowie evidenzbasierten Pathophysiologie.

Material und Methoden

Kritische Betrachtung von 12 ausgewählten BPS-Mythen und Darstellung der korrekten Terminologie sowie Pathophysiologie anhand einer Literaturrecherche (PubMed).

Ergebnisse

Das durchschnittliche Prostatagewicht eines jungen, gesunden, erwachsenen Mannes beträgt zwar 20 g, variiert aber zwischen 8 und 40 g. Das BPS verläuft nicht in Stadien, weshalb die Stadieneinteilungen nach Alken oder Vahlensieck nicht mehr verwendet werden sollten. Es besteht keine feste Beziehung zwischen Blasenauslassobstruktion (BOO) und Prostatagröße, Divertikel/Pseudodivertikel, Restharn, Harnwegsinfektionen, Harnverhalt oder Nierenfunktionsstörung. Die Urethro-Zystoskopie eignet sich nicht zur BOO-Diagnostik. Kein BPS-Medikament kann die BOO relevant reduzieren. Es bestehen keine stichhaltigen Beweise, dass die Prostataresektion vollständig bis zur chirurgischen Kapsel erfolgen muss.

Diskussion

Die Ursachen für die hartnäckige Verwendung überholter Begriffe, alter oder falscher Terminologie sowie falscher pathophysiologischer Zusammenhänge beim BPS sind vielfältig. Ein Grund ist die mangelnde Umsetzung evidenzbasierter Inhalte von Leitlinien bedingt durch mangelndes Wissen, individuelle Überzeugungen, Kosten, Verfügbarkeit und Erstattungspolitik. Ein weiterer Grund ist die zunehmende Fokussierung der Urologie auf onkologische Themen verbunden mit einer unterrepräsentierten Aus- und Weiterbildung zum Thema BPS.

Schlüsselwörter

Benigne Prostatahyperplasie Benigne Prostatavergrößerung Blasenauslassobstruktion Restharn Blasendivertikel Transurethrale Resektion der Prostata Mythen 

Fake News BPH – what is really true!

Abstract

Background

Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) is the fourth most common and the fifth most costly disease in men aged 50 years or older. Despite the high prevalence of LUTS/BPH in clinical practice and evidence-based guideline recommendations, there are still plenty of misconceptions on the terminology and pathophysiology of the disease, leading to false assumptions and malpractice.

Objectives

Listing of commonly used false assumptions and clarification of the correct terminology and pathophysiology.

Materials and Methods

Critical reflection of 12 selected fake news based on PubMed search.

Results

Average prostate weight in healthy men is 20 g but varies between 8–40 g. The BPH-disease does not progress in stages; therefore, the BPH-classifications according Alken or Vahlensieck should not be used anymore. There is only a weak and inconsistent relationship between bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and prostate size, diverticula/pseudo-diverticula, postvoid residual, urinary retention or renal insufficiency, which is too unreliable for BOO-diagnosis in the individual patient. Urethro-cystoscopy with grading of the degrees of occlusion of the prostatic urethra and bladder trabeculation is insufficient for BOO-diagnosis. There is no clinically relevant reduction of BOO with licensed BPH-drugs and no convincing data that prostate resection (TURP) has to be complete until the surgical capsule in order to obtain optimal results.

Conclusions

The reasons for the persistent use of wrong terminology and pathophysiology are diverse. One reason is lack of implementation of evidence-based guidelines into clinical practice due to lack of knowledge, individual beliefs, costs, availability and reimbursement policies. Another reason is the increasing focus on oncology, coupled with underrepresented education and training on BPH.

Keywords

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Benign Prostatic Enlargement Bladder Outlet Obstruction Postvoid Residual Bladder Diverticulum Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Myths 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

M. Oelke, T. Bschleipfer und K. Höfner geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Aagaard J, Jonler M, Fuglsig S et al (1994) Total transurethral resection versus minimal transurethral resection of the prostate – a 10-year follow-up study of urinary symptoms, uroflowmetry and residual volume. Br J Urol 74:333–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ (1979) The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. Br J Urol 51:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrams PH, Roylance J, Feneley RC (1976) Excretion urography in the investigation of prostatism. Br J Urol 48:681–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adot Zurbano JM, Salinas Casado J, Dambros M et al (2005) Urodynamics of the bladder diverticulum in the adult male. Arch Esp Urol 58:641–649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agrawal MS, Aron M, Goel R (2005) Hemiresection of the prostate: short-term randomized comparison with standard transurethral resection. J Endourol 19:868–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alken CE (1955) Leitfaden der Urologie. Taschenbuch für Studium und Praxis. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Altwein J, Aumüller G, Berges R et al (1999) Leitlinie der Deutschen Urologen zur Therapie des BPH-Syndroms. Urologe A 38:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Altwein J, Aumüller G, Berges R et al (1999) Leitlinien der Deutschen Urologen zur Diagnostik des BPH-Syndroms. Urologe A 38:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson JB, Grant JB (1991) Postoperative retention of urine: a prospective urodynamic study. BMJ 302:894–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anonymous (1980) Third report on the standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Procedures related to the evaluation of micturition, pressure-flow relationships, residual urine. Produced by the International Continence Society Committee on Standardisation of Terminology, Nottingham, February 1977. Eur Urol 6:170–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antunes AA, Srougi M, Coelho RF et al (2009) Transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia: how much should be resected? Int Braz J Urol 35:683–689 (discussion 689–691)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asimakopoulos AD, De Nunzio C, Kocjancic E et al (2016) Measurement of post-void residual urine. Neurourol Urodyn 35:55–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bachmann A, Schurch L, Ruszat R et al (2005) Photoselective vaporization (PVP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): a prospective bi-centre study of perioperative morbidity and early functional outcome. Eur Urol 48:965–971 (discussion 972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barabas G, Molstad S (2005) No association between elevated post-void residual volume and bacteriuria in residents of nursing homes. Scand J Prim Health Care 23:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barnes RW, Bergman RT, Hadley HL (1959) Endoscopy. In: Alken CE, Dix VW, Weyrauch HM, Wildbolz E (eds) Handbuch der Urologie. Springer, Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg, pp 210–214Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barry MJ, Cockett AT, Holtgrewe HL et al (1993) Relationship of symptoms of prostatism to commonly used physiological and anatomical measures of the severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 150:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berges R (2008) Epidemiologie des benignen Prostatasyndroms. Assoziierte Risiken und Versorgungsdaten bei deutschen Männern über 50. Urologe A 47:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berges R, Dreikorn K, Höfner K et al (2003) Leitlinien der Deutschen Urologen zur Diagnostik des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS). Urologe A 42:584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berges R, Dreikorn K, Höfner K et al (2009) Diagnostik und Differenzialdiagnostik des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS): Leitlinien der Deutschen Urologen. Urologe A 48:1356–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berges R, Oelke M (2011) Age-stratified normal values for prostate volume, PSA, maximum urinary flow rate, IPSS, and other LUTS/BPH indicators in the German male community-dwelling population aged 50 years or older. World J Urol 29:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berges RR, Pientka L, Höfner K et al (2001) Male lower urinary tract symptoms and related health care seeking in Germany. Eur Urol 39:682–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC et al (1984) The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol 132:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bosch JL, Hop WC, Kirkels WJ et al (1995) The International Prostate Symptom Score in a community-based sample of men between 55 and 74 years of age: prevalence and correlation of symptoms with age, prostate volume, flow rate and residual urine volume. Br J Urol 75:622–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bosch JL, Kranse R, Van Mastrigt R et al (1995) Reasons for the weak correlation between prostate volume and urethral resistance parameters in patients with prostatism. J Urol 153:689–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brookman-May S, Burger M, Hoschke B et al (2010) Association between residual urinary volume and urinary tract infection: prospective trial in 225 male patients. Urologe A 49:1163–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruskewitz RC, Iversen P, Madsen PO (1982) Value of postvoid residual urine determination in evaluation of prostatism. Urology 20:602–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bschleipfer T, Bach T, Berges R et al (2016) S2e-Leitlinie der Deutschen Urologen : Instrumentelle Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms. Urologe A 55:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen SS, Hong JG, Hsiao YJ et al (2000) The correlation between clinical outcome and residual prostatic weight ratio after transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 85:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crawford ED, Wilson SS, Mcconnell JD et al (2006) Baseline factors as predictors of clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia in men treated with placebo. J Urol 175:1422–1426 (discussion 1426–1427)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Donker PJ, Ivanovici F, Noach EL (1972) Analyses of the urethral pressure profile by means of electromyography and the administration of drugs. Br J Urol 44:180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    El Din KE, De Wildt MJ, Rosier PF et al (1996) The correlation between urodynamic and cystoscopic findings in elderly men with voiding complaints. J Urol 155:1018–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    El Din KE, Kiemeney LA, De Wildt MJ et al (1996) The correlation between bladder outlet obstruction and lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the international prostate symptom score. J Urol 156:1020–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elkoushy MA, Elshal AM, Elhilali MM (2015) Holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate: Can prostate size predict the long-term outcome? Can Urol Assoc J 9:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Furuya S, Kumamoto Y, Yokoyama E et al (1982) Alpha-adrenergic activity and urethral pressure in prostatic zone in benign prostatic hypertrophy. J Urol 128:836–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fusco F, Palmieri A, Ficarra V et al (2016) alpha1-blockers improve benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of urodynamic studies. Eur Urol 69:1091–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Guess HA et al (1995) Natural history of prostatism: relationship among symptoms, prostate volume and peak urinary flow rate. J Urol 153:1510–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gosling JA, Dixon JS (1980) Structure of trabeculated detrusor smooth muscle in cases of prostatic hypertrophy. Urol Int 35:351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A et al (2015) EAU guidelines on the assessment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 67:1099–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gratzke C, Barber N, Speakman MJ et al (2017) Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2‑year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study. BJU Int 119:767–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gravas S, Tzortzis V, Melekos MD (2008) Translation of benign prostatic hyperplasia guidelines into clinical practice. Curr Opin Urol 18:56–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hakenberg OW, Helke C, Manseck A et al (2001) Is there a relationship between the amount of tissue removed at transurethral resection of the prostate and clinical improvement in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 39:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hald T (1989) Urodynamics in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a survey. Prostate Suppl 2:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hampson SJ, Noble JG, Rickards D et al (1992) Does residual urine predispose to urinary tract infection? Br J Urol 70:506–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hofmann R (2017) Endoskopische Urologie: Atlas und Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Höfner K (2018) Restharnbildung durch BOO – ein Mythos. UroForum 3:26–29Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Höfner K (2014) Wirkung verschiedener BPS-Therapien auf die Blasenauslassobstruktion (BOO). In: Höfner K, Bach T, Berges R, Bschleipfer T, Dreikorn K, Gratzke C, Madersbacher S, Michel MS, Muschter R, Oelke M, Reich O, Tschuschke C (eds) S2e Leitlinie Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, BoD, München, pp 597–650Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Höfner K, Bach T, Berges R et al (2016) S2e-Leitlinie der Deutschen Urologen : Konservative und medikamentose Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms. Urologe A 55:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hong SK, Lee ST, Jeong SJ et al (2010) Chronic kidney disease among men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 105:1424–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Issa MM, Fenter TC, Black L et al (2006) An assessment of the diagnosed prevalence of diseases in men 50 years of age or older. Am J Manag Care 12:S83–S89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jakobsen H, Torp-Pedersen S, Juul N (1988) Ultrasonic evaluation of age-related human prostatic growth and development of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 107:26–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kang M, Kim M, Choo MS et al (2016) Urodynamic features and significant predictors of bladder outlet obstruction in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia and small prostate volume. Urology 89:96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kaplan SA, Wein AJ, Staskin DR et al (2008) Urinary retention and post-void residual urine in men: separating truth from tradition. J Urol 180:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ko DS, Fenster HN, Chambers K et al (1995) The correlation of multichannel urodynamic pressure-flow studies and American Urological Association symptom index in the evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 154:396–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lourenco T, Shaw M, Fraser C et al (2010) The clinical effectiveness of transurethral incision of the prostate: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. World J Urol 28:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mauermayer W (1981) Transurethrale Operationen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mccarthy J (1932) A technical consideration of endoscopic revision of the obstructing prostate. J Urol 28:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mochtar CA, Kiemeney LA, Van Riemsdijk MM et al (2006) Post-void residual urine volume is not a good predictor of the need for invasive therapy among patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 175:213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nesbit RM (1943) Transurethral prostatectomy. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Oelke M, Baard J, Wijkstra H et al (2008) Age and bladder outlet obstruction are independently associated with detrusor overactivity in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 54:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Oelke M, Höfner K, Wiese B et al (2002) Increase in detrusor wall thickness indicates bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men. World J Urol 19:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Oelke M, Kirschner-Hermanns R, Thiruchelvam N et al (2012) Can we identify men who will have complications from benign prostatic obstruction (BPO)? ICI-RS 2011. Neurourol Urodyn 31:322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Omli R, Skotnes LH, Mykletun A et al (2008) Residual urine as a risk factor for lower urinary tract infection: a 1-year follow-up study in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:871–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Osman NI, Chapple CR, Abrams P et al (2014) Detrusor underactivity and the underactive bladder: a new clinical entity? A review of current terminology, definitions, epidemiology, aetiology, and diagnosis. Eur Urol 65:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Park HK, Paick SH, Lho YS et al (2012) Effect of the ratio of resected tissue in comparison with the prostate transitional zone volume on voiding function improvement after transurethral resection of prostate. Urology 79:202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rom M, Waldert M, Klingler HC et al (2013) Bladder outlet obstruction in men with acute urinary retention: an urodynamic study. World J Urol 31:1045–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rosier PF, De La Rosette JJ (1995) Is there a correlation between prostate size and bladder-outlet obstruction? World J Urol 13:9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rule AD, Lieber MM, Jacobsen SJ (2005) Is benign prostatic hyperplasia a risk factor for chronic renal failure? J Urol 173:691–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Strope SA (2018) Evidence-based guidelines in lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia and variation in care. Curr Opin Urol 28:262–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Strope SA, Elliott SP, Saigal CS et al (2011) Urologist compliance with AUA best practice guidelines for benign prostatic hyperplasia in medicare population. Urology 78:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Swyer GI (1944) Post-natal growth changes in the human prostate. J Anat 78:130–145PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Thomas AW, Cannon A, Bartlett E et al (2005) The natural history of lower urinary tract dysfunction in men: minimum 10-year urodynamic follow-up of untreated detrusor underactivity. BJU Int 96:1295–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Thomas AW, Cannon A, Bartlett E et al (2004) 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 93:745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vahlensieck W (1996) BPH-Stadieneinteilung. BPH-Konferenz, Guernsey, 19.–22.09.1996Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Van De Beek C, Rollema HJ, Van Mastrigt R et al (1992) Objective analysis of infravesical obstruction and detrusor contractility; appraisal of the computer program Dx/CLIM and Schäfer nomogram. Neurourol Urodyn 1:394–395Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, McDonnell J et al (2006) Medical consumption and costs during a one-year follow-up of patients with LUTS suggestive of BPH in six european countries: report of the TRIUMPH study. Eur Urol 49:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wikipedia (2018) Mythos. In: Wikipedia, Die freie EnzyklopädieGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yalla SV, Sullivan MP, Lecamwasam HS et al (1995) Correlation of American Urological Association symptom index with obstructive and nonobstructive prostatism. J Urol 153:674–679 (discussion 679–680)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Urologie, Kinderurologie und Urologische Onkologie, Prostatazentrum NordwestSt. Antonius-HospitalGronauDeutschland
  2. 2.Klinik für Urologie, Andrologie und KinderurologieKliniken NordoberpfalzWeidenDeutschland
  3. 3.Klinik für UrologieEvangelisches Krankenhaus OberhausenOberhausenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations