Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leitlinien der Deutschen Urologen zur Diagnostik des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS)

Leitlinien der Deutschen Urologen

  • Leitlinien der DGU
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Aarnink RG, de la Rosette JJ, Debruyne FM, Wijkstra H (1996) Formula-derived prostate volume determination. Eur Urol 29: 399–402

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aarnink RG, de la Rosette JJ, Debruyne FM, Wijkstra H (1996) Reproducibility of prostate volume measurements from transrectal ultrasonography by an automated and a manual technique. B J Urol 78: 219–223

  3. Abrams P (1995) Objective evaluation of bladder outlet obstruction. Br J Urol 76: 11–15

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ameda K, Koyanagi T, Nantani M, Taniguchi K, Matsuno T (1994) The relevance of preoperative cystometrography in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlating the findings with clinical features and outcome after prostatectomy. J Urol 152: 443–447

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson JR, Strickland D, Corbin D, Byrnes JA, Zweiback E (1995) Age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen. Urology 46: 54–57

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anyanwu SNC (1995) Is routine urography necessary in all patients undergoing suprapubic transvesical prostatectomy? East Afr Med J 72/2: 78

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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: 351–358

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bergdahl S, Aus G, Lodding P, Norlen L, Hugosson J (1999) Transrectal ultrasound with separate measurement of the transition zone predicts the short-term outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate. Urology 53: 926–930

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bosch JL (1995) Postvoid residual urine in the evaluation of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 13: 17–20

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bosch JL, Hop WC, Kirkels WJ, Schröder FH (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: 622–630

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bruskewitz RC, Iversen P, Madsen PO (1982) Value of postvoided residual urine determination in evaluation of prostatism. Urology 20: 602–604

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chandiramani VA, Palace J, Fowler CJ (1997) How to recognize patients with parkinsonism who should not have urological surgery. Br J Urol 80: 100–104

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chapple CR, Smith D (1994) The pathophysiological changes in the bladder obstructed by benign prostatic hyperplasia. Br J Urol 73: 117–121

    Google Scholar 

  14. Comiter CV, Sullivan MP, Schacterle RS, Cohen LH, Valla SV (1997) Urodynamic risk factors for renal dysfunction in men with obstructive and nonobstructive voiding dysfunction. J Urol 158: 181–185

    Google Scholar 

  15. De la Rosette JJ, Witjes WP, Debruyne FM, Kerstein PL, Wijkstra H (1996) Improved reliability of uroflowmetry investigations: results of a portable home-based uroflowmetry study. Br J Urol 78: 385–390

    Google Scholar 

  16. Diokno AC (1996) Editorial: the impact of technological and scientific advances in understanding, evaluating and managing bladder and outlet obstruction. J Urol 155: 527–158

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dörsam J, Kälble T, Riedasch G, Staehler G (1994) Wertigkeit der bildgebenden Diagnostik bei benigner Prostatahyperplasie und beim Prostatakarzinom. Radiologe 34: 101–108

    Google Scholar 

  18. DuBeau CE, Sullivan MP, Cravalho E, Resnick NM, Yalla SV (1995) Correlation between micturitional urethral pressure profile and pressure-flow criteria in bladder outlet obstruction. J Urol 154: 498–503

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dunsmuir WD, Feneley M, Corry DA, Bryan CJ, Kirby RS (1996) The day-to-day variation (test-retest reliability) of residual urine measurement. Br J Urol 77 2:192–193

    Google Scholar 

  20. El Din K, Koch WF, de Wildt MJ, Debruyne FM, de la Rosette JJ (1996) The predictive value of microscopic haematuria in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 30: 409–413

    Google Scholar 

  21. El Din KE, Kiemeney LA, de Wildt MJ, Debruyne FM, de La Rosette JJ (1996) Correlation between uroflowmetry, prostate volume, postvoid residue, and lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the international prostate symptom score. Urology 48: 393–397

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fall M, Geirsson G, Lindstrom S (1995) Towards a new classification of overactive bladders. Neurourol Urodyn 14/6: 635–646

    Google Scholar 

  23. Feneley MR, Dunsmuir WD, Pearce J, Kirby RS (1996) Reproducibility of uroflow measurement: experience during a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of doxazosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 47/5: 658–663

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gerber GS (1996) The role of urodynamic study in the evaluation and management of men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 48: 668–675

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gleason DM, Bottaccini MR, McRae LP (1997) Noninvasive urodynamics: a study of male voiding dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 16: 93–100

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goessl C, Knispel HH, Miller K, Klan R (1997) Is routine excretory urography necessary at first diagnosis of bladder cancer? J Urol 157: 480–481

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goldenberg S, Gleave M, Bruchovsky N, Rennie P (1997) The value of symptom score, quality of life score, maximal urinary flow rate, residual volume and prostate size for the diagnosis of obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia: a urodynamic analysis—Editorial Comment. J Urol 157: 2267

    Google Scholar 

  28. Griffiths D (1995) Basics of pressure-flow studies. World J Urol 13: 30–33

    Google Scholar 

  29. Griffiths D, Harrison G, Moore K, McCracken P (1994) Long-term changes in urodynamics studies of voiding in the elderly. Urol Res 22: 235–238

    Google Scholar 

  30. Griffiths K, Coffey D, Cockett A et al. (1996) The regulation of prostatic growth. In: Cockett ATK, Khoury S, Aso Y et al. (eds) The 3rd International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyerplasia (BPH). Scientific Communication International, Monaco, pp 73–121

  31. Griffiths D, Höfner K, van Mastrigt R et al. (1997) Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: pressure-flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance, and urethral obstruction. Neurourol Urodyn 16: 1-18

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hadorn DC, Baker D, Hodges JS, Hicks N (1996) Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 49: 749–754

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hall MC, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD (1996) Is screening for prostate cancer necessary in men with symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia? Seminars in Urologic Oncology 14: 122–133

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hampson SJ, Noble JG, Richards D, Milroy EJG (1992) Does residual urine predispose to urinary tract infection? Br J Urol 70: 506–508

    Google Scholar 

  35. Harzmann R, Weckermann D (1995) Diagnostik und Therapie des Prostataadenoms—Bewährtes und Neues. Med Welt 46: 454–457

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hasegawa Y, Sakamoto N, Gotoh K (1996) Relationship of ultrasonic and histologic findings in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate 28/2: 111-116

    Google Scholar 

  37. Höfner K, Kramer EJ, Tan HK, Krah H, Jonas U (1995) CHESS classification of bladder-outflow obstruction. A consequence in the discussion of current concepts. World Journal of Urology 13: 59–64

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jacobsen SJ (1995) Do prostate size and urinary flow rates predict health care-seeking behavior for urinary symptoms in men? Urology 45: 64–69

    Google Scholar 

  39. Janknegt RA, Roehrborn CG (1994) The role of the general practitioner in the diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prog Clin Biol Res 386: 313–329

    Google Scholar 

  40. Javle P, Jenkins SA, West C, Parsons KE (1996) Quantification of voiding dysfunction in patients awaiting transurethral prostatectomy. J Urol 156: 1014–1019

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jensen KM, Jorgensen JB, Morgensen P (1996) Long-term predictive role of urodynamics: an 8-year follow-up of prostatic surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms. Br J Urol 78/27: 213–218

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jonas U, Kramer G, Hofner K (1994) The principles and clinical application of advanced urodynamic analysis for BPH. Prog Clin Biol Res 386: 141–156

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jonas U, Höfner K (1996) Symptom scores, watchful waiting and prostate specific antigen levels in benign prostatic hyperplasia—Editorial. J Urol 156: 1040–1041

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jorgensen JB, Jensen KM (1996) Uroflowmetry. Urol Clin North Am 23/2: 237–242

  45. Kaplan SA, Te AE (1995) Uroflowmetry and urodynamics. Urol Clin North Am 22: 309–320

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kaplan SA, Reis RB (1996) Significant correlation of the American Urological Association symptom score and a novel urodynamic parameter: Detrusor contraction duration. J Urol 156: 1668–1672

    Google Scholar 

  47. Koch WF, Ezzeldin K, de Wildt MJ, Debruyne FM, de la Rosette JJ (1996) The outcome of renal ultrasound in the assessment of 556 consecutive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 155: 186–189

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kojima M, Inui E, Ochiai A et al. (1997) Noninvasive quantitative estimation of infravesical obstruction using ultrasonic measurement of bladder weight. J Urol 157: 476–479

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kurita Y, Masuda H, Terada H, Suzuki K, Fujita K (1998) Transition zone index as a risk factor for acute urinary retention in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 51: 595–600

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lim CS, Abrams P (1995) The Abrams-Griffiths Nomogram. World J Urol 13: 34–39

  51. Madersbacher S, Klingler HC, Diavan B et al. (1997) Is obstruction predictable by clinical evaluation in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms? Br J Urol 80: 72–77

    Google Scholar 

  52. Madsen FA, Bruskewitz RC (1995) Cystoscopy in the evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 13: 14–16

    Google Scholar 

  53. Manieri C, Carter SS, Romano G et al. (1998) The diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in men by ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness. J Urol 159: 761–765

    Google Scholar 

  54. McConnell JD (1994) Why pressure-flow studies should be optional and not mandatory studies for evaluating men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 44: 156–158

    Google Scholar 

  55. McGuire E (1996) Editorial comment—Combinations of maximum urinary flow rate and American Urological Association symptom index that are more specific for identifying obstructive and non-obstructive prostatism. Neurourol Urodyn 15: 470–471

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nathan MS, Seenivasagam K, Mei Q, Wickham JE, Miller RA (1996) Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate? Br J Urol 77: 401–407

    Google Scholar 

  57. Netto NR, D'Ancona CAL, Lopes de Lima M (1996) Correlation between the International Prostatic Symptom Score and a pressure-flow study in the evaluation of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 155: 200–202

    Google Scholar 

  58. Oelke M, Höfner K, Jonas U (2000) Standardisierung der sonographischen Detrusordickenmessung. Urologe A 39 (Suppl. 1): 136

    Google Scholar 

  59. Oelke M, Höfner K, Wiese B, Grünewald V, Jonas U (2002) Increase in detrusor wall thickness indicates bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men. World J Urol 19: 443–452

    Google Scholar 

  60. Oesterling JE, Girman CJ, Panser LA et al. (1994) Correlation between urinary flow rate, voided volume, and patient age in a community-based population. Prog Clin Biol Res 386: 125–139

    Google Scholar 

  61. Othani T, Hayashi Y, Kishino TE et al. (1999) A new parameter in decision making for transurethral electroresection of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 35: 185–191

    Google Scholar 

  62. Reynard JM, Peters TJ, Lim C, Abrams P (1996) The value of multiple free-flow studies in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Br J Urol 77: 813–818

    Google Scholar 

  63. Reynard JM, Yang Q, Donovan JL et al. (1998) The ICS-'BPH' Study: uroflowmetry, lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction. Br J Urol 82: 619–623

    Google Scholar 

  64. Roehrborn CG, Girman CJ, Rhodes T et al. (1997) Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound. Urology 49: 548–557

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rosier PF, de la Rosette JJ (1995) Is there a correlation between prostata size and bladder-outlet obstruction? World J Urol 13: 9-13

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ruud Bosch JL (1995) Postvoid residual urine in the evaluation of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 13: 17–20

    Google Scholar 

  67. Schacterle RS, Sullivan MP, Yalla SV (1996) Reply—Combinations of maximum urinary flow rate and American Urological Association symptom index that are more specific for identifying obstructive and non-obstructive prostatism. Neurourol Urodyn 15: 471–472

    Google Scholar 

  68. Schäfer W, de la Rosette JJ, Höfner K et al. (1994) The ICS BPH study: pressure-flow studies, quality control and initial analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 13: 491–492

    Google Scholar 

  69. Schleicher C, Neumann R, Kaiser WA, Stein G (1997) Zur Indikation der intravenösen Urographie. Med Klin 92: 79–82

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sullivan MP, Comiter CV, Yalla SV (1996) Micturitional urethral pressure profilometry. Urol Clin North Am 23/2: 263–278

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ukimura O, Kojima M, Inui E et al. (1996) A statistical study of the American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia in participants of mass screening program for prostatic diseases using transrectal sonography. J Urol 156: 1673–1678

    Google Scholar 

  72. van de Beek C, Stoevelaar HJ, McDonnell J et al. (1997) Interpretation of uroflowmetry curves by urologists. J Urol 157: 164–168

    Google Scholar 

  73. van Venrooij GE, Boon TA (1996) The value of symptom score, quality of life score, maximal urinary flow rate, residual volume and prostate size for the diagnosis of obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia: a urodynamic analysis. J Urol 155/6: 2014–2018

    Google Scholar 

  74. Walsh PC (1984) Human benign prostatic hyperplasia: etiological considerations. In: Kimball FA et al. (eds) New approaches to the study of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Alan R Liss, New York, pp 1–25

  75. Witjes WP, de Wildt MJ, Rosier PF et al. (1996) Variability of clinical and pressure-flow study variables after 6 months of watchful waiting in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic enlargement. J Urol 156: 1026–1033

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Klinik, Universität Hannover, Germany

    M. Oelke

  2. Urologische Klinik, Universität Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover

    M. Oelke

Authors
  1. M. Oelke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

R. Berges, K. Dreikorn, K. Höfner, U. Jonas (Vorsitzender), K. U. Laval, S. Madersbacher, M. C. Michel, R. Muschter, M. Oelke, L. Pientka, C. Tschuschke, U. Tunn für den Arbeitskreis BPH der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Oelke.

Additional information

Einstufung der Leitlinie nach AWMF: Stufe 2

Für den Arbeitskreis Urologische Funktionsdiagnostik u. Urologie der Frau: H. Palmtag, M. Goepel

Für den BDU: K. Schalkhäuser

Für die DGU-Leitlinienkommission: B. Göckel-Beining, A. Heidenreich, H. Rübben, K. Schalkhäuser, W. Thon, J. Thüroff, W. Weidner (Vorsitzender)

Stand: Februar 2003

Anhang

Anhang

Grundlage der Evidenzbewertung für Leitlinienempfehlungen:

Evidenzstufe

  1. 1.

    Unterstützende Evidenz aus gut durchgeführten randomisierten, kontrollierten Studien mit 100 oder mehr Patienten.

    • Evidenz aus gut durchgeführten multizentrischen Studien.

    • Evidenz aus Metaanalysen, die Qualitätsränge in der Analyse berücksichtigen und insgesamt mindestens 100 Patienten für die Berechnung von Effektgröße und Konfidenzintervall berücksichtigen.

  2. 2.

    Unterstützende Evidenz aus gut durchgeführten randomisierten, kontrollierten Studien mit weniger als 100 Patienten.

    • Evidenz aus gut durchgeführten Studien aus einem oder mehreren Zentren.

    • Evidenz aus Metaanalysen, die Qualitätsränge in der Analyse berücksichtigen und weniger als 100 Patienten für die Berechnung von Effektgröße und Konfidenzintervall berücksichtigen.

  3. 3.

    Unterstützende Evidenz aus gut durchgeführten Kohortenstudien.

    • Evidenz aus gut durchgeführter prospektiver Kohortenstudie.

    • Evidenz aus gut durchgeführter retrospektiver Kohortenstudie.

    • Evidenz aus gut durchgeführter Metaanalyse aus Kohortenstudien.

  4. 4.

    Unterstützende Evidenz aus gut durchgeführten Fallkontrollstudien.

  5. 5.

    Unterstützende Evidenz aus schlecht kontrollierten oder unkontrollierten Studien.

    • Evidenz aus randomisierten klinischen Studien mit methodischen Fehlern.

    • Evidenz aus Anwendungsbeobachtungen mit hohem Beeinflussungspotential.

    • Evidenz aus Fallserien oder Fallberichten.

  6. 6.

    Widersprüchliche Evidenz, die eine Empfehlung in Richtung der Evidenzlage unterstützt.

  7. 7.

    Expertenmeinungen.

Zusammenfassende Graduierung:

  • Grad A: Evidenz aus 1–3.

  • Grad B: Evidenz aus 4–5.

  • Grad C: Evidenz aus 6–7.

Für die Leitlinien wurde alle Evidenzen mit Grad A berücksichtigt, zum Teil ergänzt durch unterstützende Evidenzen aus Grad B (soweit eine Grad-A-Evidenz nicht vorhanden ist). Nicht berücksichtigt wurde Evidenzen aus Grad C.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oelke, M., R. Berges, K. Dreikorn, K. Höfner, U. Jonas (Vorsitzender), K. U. Laval, S. Madersbacher, M. C. Michel, R. Muschter, M. Oelke, L. Pientka, C. Tschuschke, U. Tunn für den Arbeitskreis BPH der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie. Leitlinien der Deutschen Urologen zur Diagnostik des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS). Urologe 42, 584–590 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-003-0319-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-003-0319-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation