Lower urinary tract symptoms in men after surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The development of medical technologies has resulted into a significant increase in the number of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgeries for benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, 29.9–41% of patients after surgical treatment are not satisfied with the surgical treatment results.

AIM: To assess the rate and nature of lower urinary tract symptoms in men after surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with various surgical techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A telephone survey was carried out among 6117 men aged 59.57 ± 11.11 years (48–83 years), who underwent surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia with various surgical techniques and 5960 of these patients were surveyed using the IPSS questionnaire in the period 2012–2022. Moreover, to assess urination, patients kept their voiding diaries for 72 hours, a questionnaire to evaluate the symptoms of overactive bladder; ultrasound of the bladder, prostate and upper urinary tract, uroflowmetry, and, if indicated, a urodynamic study were performed.

RESULTS: The study showed that 2413 (40.5%) patients were “absolutely satisfied” with the surgical treatment results, 829 (13.9%) patients were “partially satisfied” and noted improved urination, although its quality was assessed as unsatisfactory, and 2718 (45.6%) operated men were “absolutely dissatisfied”. Lower urinary tract symptoms persisted in 2655 (47.9%) men which underwent surgery, and in 3.3% of cases (87 patients) their severity increased in the postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of dissatisfaction with the surgical treatment results of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia is caused by the persistence of irritative symptoms in the postoperative period and does not depend on the surgery performed. The origin of symptoms in most patients is not associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the surgery indications are overestimated.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Aleksey V. Krupin

Privolzhsky Research Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: alval.krupin@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9584-756X
SPIN-code: 4064-2757

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Nizhny Novgorod

Valentin N. Krupin

Privolzhsky Research Medical University

Email: vn.krupin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4887-4888
SPIN-code: 8892-7661
https://famous-scientists.ru/2330

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Nizhny Novgorod

Fedor A. Sevryukov

Privolzhsky Research Medical University

Email: fedor_sevryukov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5120-2620
SPIN-code: 5508-5724

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Nizhny Novgorod

References

  1. Kadyrov ZA, Faniev MV, Prokopiev YV, et al. Reproductive health of the Russian population as a key factor of demographic dynamics. The Bulletin of Contemporary Clinical Medicine. 2022;15(5):100–106. EDN: FPJIAU doi: 10.20969/VSKM.2022.15(5).100-106
  2. Apolihin OI, Sevryukov FA, Sorokin DA, et al. Dynamics and prognosis of the benign prostatic hyperplasia morbidity in Nizhegorodsky region. Experimental and clinical urology. 2013;(3):4–7. EDN: REDDGB
  3. Sevryukov FA, Sorokin DA, Karpuhin IV, et al. Transurethral enucleation of prostate (TUEB) — new option in bipolar endoscopic surgery of BPH. Experimental and clinical urology. 2012;(2):34–36. EDN: PDARMH
  4. Mustafaev AT, Kyzlasov PS, Dianov MP, et al. Surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: the past and the present. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2019;9(1):47–56. EDN ICSZAV doi: 10.17816/uroved9147-56
  5. Pushkar DYu, Rasner PI. Lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urologiia. 2006;(3S):4–18. EDN: YZMCGP doi: 10.18565/urol.2017.3-supplement.4-18
  6. www.nice.org.uk [Internet]. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men & Appendices A-H. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12984/48554/48554.pdf
  7. Lepor H, Rigaud G. The efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate in men with moderate symptoms of prostatism. J Urol. 1990;143(3):533–537. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)40012-7
  8. Sevryukov FA. Choice of the method of urodynamic examination of patients in determining the indications for surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia [dissertation abstract]. Moscow; 1999. 25 p. (In Russ.)
  9. Pushkar DY. “Successful” transurethral resection of the prostate in the Russian Federation. In: XVII Congress of the Russian Society of Urologists: “Effective Pharmacotherapy. Urology and Nephrology”. N 2. 2017. (In Russ.) https://umedp.ru/articles/print/11949
  10. Simanov RN, Amdiy RE, Kuzmin IV. Features of detrusor function disorders in patients with dysuria in the long period after transurethral resection of the prostate. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2024;14(1):35–44. EDN: HRJIIS doi: 10.17816/uroved619917
  11. Cornu J-N, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: An update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1066–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017
  12. Kuzmin IV. Epidemiological aspects of overactive bladder and urge urinary incontinence. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2015;5(3):30–34. EDN: VHUCCH doi: 10.17816/uroved5330-3
  13. Simanov RN, Amdiy RE, Al-Shukri SK, et al. Effectiveness of treatment of detrusor overactivity after transurethral resection of benign prostate hyperplasia. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2023;13(1):5–13. EDN: GUAKSQ doi: 10.17816/uroved192493
  14. Ivashchenko VA. Diagnosis and treatment of urinary disorders after transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia [dissertation]. Chelyabinsk; 2017. 179 p. (In Russ.)
  15. Amdii RE. Diagnostic and prognostic value of lower urinary tract urodynamic studies in patients with infravesical obstruction and impaired detrusor contractility [dissertation]. Saint Petersburg; 2007. 336 p. (In Russ.)
  16. Nitti VW, Kim Y, Combs AJ. Voiding dysfunction following transurethral resection of the prostate: symptoms and urodynamic findings. J Urol. 1997;157(2):600–603. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65214-5
  17. Amdiy RE, Giorgobiani TG. Evaluation of the lower urinary tract dysfunction at patients with unsatisfactory results operative treatment benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2012;2(2):32–37. EDN: PZHTGH doi: 10.17816/uroved2232-37
  18. Martov AG, Merinov DS, Kornienko SI, et al. Postoperative urologic complications of transurethral electrosurgical interventions on the prostate gland for adenoma. Urologiia. 2006;(2):25–32. (In Russ.)
  19. Nozdrachev NA, Neimark AI, Neimark BA. Administration of Vitaprost plus for prevention of infectious-inflammatory complications of transurethral prostatic resection in patients with prostatic adenoma. Urologiia. 2011;(4):55–59. EDN: OEZORF
  20. Pereverzev AS, Sergienko NF, Ilyukhin SA. Diseases of the prostate gland. Kharkov: S.A.M. Publ.; 2005. 260 p. (In Russ.)
  21. Tkachuk IN. Complications of transurethral resection of prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and ways of their prevention [dissertation]. Saint Petersburg; 2011. 166 p. (In Russ.)
  22. Nickel JC, Downey J, Pontari MA, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled multicentre study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of finasteride for male chronic pelvic pain syndrome (category IIIA chronic nonbacterial prostatitis). BJU Int. 2004;93(7):991–995. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04766.x
  23. Mazo EB, Krivoborodov GG, Shkolnikov ME, Gorchkhanov MA. Diagnosis and treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndrome in men. Lechaschi vrach. 2004;(9). Available from: https://www.lvrach.ru/2004/09/4531672?ysclid=m1b244p5y859221173 (In Russ.)
  24. Startsev VYu, Dudarev VA, Sevryukov FA, Zabrodina NB. Economic aspects of treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urologiia. 2019;(6):115–119. EDN: DBIZTQ doi: 10.18565/urology.2019.6.115-119
  25. Kuzmin IV, Slesarevskaya MN, Romikh VV. Overactive bladder, inflammation and urinary tract infection: pathogenetic parallels. Urology reports (St. Petersburg). 2024;14(1):65–79. EDN: GAHDJA doi: 10.17816/uroved627461
  26. Avdoshin VP, Aslamazov EA, Goryunov VG, et al. Manual of urology. In 3 vol. Vol. 2. Lopatkin NA, editor. Moscow: Medicine; 1998. 764 p. (In Russ.)
  27. He W, Ding T, Niu Z, et al. Reoperation after surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1287212. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1287212
  28. Sitdykov RM, Shaidullin EN, Zubkov AY. Choosing the surgical treatment method for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Kazan medical journal. 2013;94(3):409–412. EDN: RRRRQP doi: 10.17816/KMJ2196
  29. Jensen KM, Andersen JT. Urodynamic implications of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urologe A. 1990;29(1): 1–4.
  30. Nielsen KK, Andersen CB, Petersen LK, et al. Morphological, stereological, and biochemical analysis of the mini-pig urinary bladder after chronic outflow obstruction and after recovery from obstruction. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14(3):269–284. doi: 10.1002/nau.1930140308
  31. Aganovic D, Hasanbegovic M, Prcic A, et al. Which is a better indicator of bladder outlet obstruction in patients with benign prostatic enlargement — intravesical protrusion of prostate or bladder wall thickness? Med Arch. 2012;66(5):324–328. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2012.66.324-328
  32. Kuo H-C. Analysis of the pathophysiology of lower urinary tract symptoms in patients after prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2002;68(2): 99–104. doi: 10.1159/000048427

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Eco-Vector

License URL: https://eco-vector.com/for_authors.php#07
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 89281 от 21.04.2025.