Search

Studies have demonstrated that alfuzosin not only improves lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but also appears to preserve ejaculatory dysfunction (EjD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of alfuzosin on ejaculatory function using the 'Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ)-EjD Short Form' - a validated, abridged-version of the 25-item MSHQ specifically assessing EjD. A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and grey literature was performed in January 2017 to identify relevant cohort studies. Search terms were 'alfuzosin', 'benign prostatic hyperplasia', 'ejaculatory dysfunction' and their synonyms without exclusions. Six cohort studies conducted between 2008 to 2015 were selected for analysis. Three of these were conducted in Korea, one in Thailand, one in China, and one in Tunisia. Overall, 1,371 patients were enrolled in these studies with a median age of 62.3 years. All studies quantified patient LUTS and ejaculatory function using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and MSHQ-EjD Short Form, respectively. IPSS had a median decrease of 6.6 while MSHQ-EjD had a median increase of 1.9. This review highlights the very real association between sexual function and LUTS. This systematic review confirms that alfuzosin may improve ejaculatory function in addition to LUTS and should be considered in men who are sexually active or who already complain of deteriorating ejaculation., Competing Interests: Henry H. Woo has served on advisory boards for Astellas. The anothor authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology.)

Background: Long-term psychological well-being and quality-of-life are important considerations when deciding whether to undergo active treatment for low-risk localised prostate cancer., Objective: To assess the long-term effects of active surveillance (AS) and/or watchful waiting (WW) on psychological and quality-of-life outcomes for low-risk localised prostate cancer patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Prostate Cancer Care and Outcome Study is a population-based prospective cohort study in New South Wales, Australia. Participants for these analyses were low-risk localised prostate cancer patients aged <70 yr at diagnosis and participated in the 10-yr follow-up., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Validated instruments assessed outcomes relating to six health-related quality-of-life and nine psychological domains relevant to prostate cancer patients. Adjusted mean differences (AMDs) in outcome scores between prostate cancer treatment groups were estimated using linear regression., Results and Limitations: At 9-11 yr after diagnosis, patients who started AS/WW initially had (1) higher levels of distress and hyperarousal than initial radiation/high-dose-rate brachytherapy patients (AMD=5.9; 95% confidence interval or CI [0.5, 11.3] and AMD=5.4; 95% CI [0.2, 10.5], respectively), (2) higher levels of distress and avoidance than initial low-dose-rate brachytherapy patients (AMD=5.3; 95% CI [0.2, 10.3] and AMD=7.0; 95% CI [0.5, 13.5], respectively), (3) better urinary incontinence scores than initial radical prostatectomy patients (AMD=-9.1; 95% CI [-16.3, -2.0]), and (4) less bowel bother than initial radiation/high-dose-rate brachytherapy patients (AMD=-16.8; 95% CI [-27.6, -6.0]). No other significant differences were found. Limitations include participant attrition, inability to assess urinary voiding and storage symptoms, and nonrandom treatment allocation., Conclusions: Notwithstanding some long-term differences between AS/WW and various active treatment groups in terms of distress, hyperarousal, avoidance, urinary incontinence, and bowel bother, most long-term outcomes were similar between these groups., Patient Summary: This study assessed the long-term psychological and quality-of-life impacts of initially monitoring rather than actively treating low-risk prostate cancer. The results suggest that initial monitoring rather than active treatment has only a minor impact on subsequent long-term psychological and quality-of-life outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The number of patients on chronic anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy requiring endoscopic urological surgery is increasing worldwide. Therefore, there is a strong demand to standardize the perioperative treatment of this cohort of patients, both from a surgical and cardiological point of view, balancing the risks of bleeding versus thrombosis, and the important possible clinical and medical legal repercussions therein. Although literature is scarce and the quality of evidence quite low, in line with other surgical specialties, guidelines and recommendations for the management of urological patients have begun to emerge. The aim of this review is to analyze current available literature and evidence on the most common endoscopic procedures performed in this high-risk group of patients, focusing on the perioperative management. In particular, to analyze the most frequently performed endoscopic procedures for the treatment of benign prostate enlargement (transurethral resection of the prostate, Thulium, Holmium and greenlight laser prostatectomy), bladder cancer (transurethral resection of the bladder), upper urinary tract urothelial cancer, and nephrolithiasis. Despite the lack of randomized studies, regardless of individual patient considerations, studies would support continuation of acetylsalicylic acid, which is recommended by cardiologists, in patients with intermediate/high risk of coronary thrombosis. In contrast, multiple studies found that bridging with light weight molecular weight heparin can potentially lead to more bleeding than continuation of the anticoagulant(s) and antiplatelet therapy, and caution with bridging is advised. All urologists should familiarize themselves with emerging guidelines and recommendations, and always be prepared to discuss specific cases or scenarios in a dedicated multidisciplinary team.

Objectives: To analyse the Australian experience of high-volume Fellowship-trained Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP) surgeons., Materials and Methods: 2943 LRP cases were performed by nine Australian surgeons. The inclusion criteria were a prospectively collected database with a minimum of 100 consecutive LRP cases. The surgeons' LRP experience commenced at various times from July 2003 to September 2009. Data were analysed for demographic, peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes., Results: The mean age of patients were 61.5 years and mean preoperative PSA 7.4 ng/ml. Mean operating time was 168 minutes with conversion to open surgery in 0.5% and a blood transfusion rate of 1.1%. Overall mean length of stay was 2.5 days. 73.6% of pathological specimens were pT2 and 86.3% had Gleason Score >7. Overall positive surgical margins (PSM) occurred in 15.9% with pT2 PSM 9.8%, pT3a PSM 30.8% and pT3b PSM 39.2%. Mean urinary continence at 12 months was 91.4% (data available from five surgeons). Mean 12 months potency after bilateral nerve spare was 47.2% (data available from four surgeons). Biochemical recurrence occurred in 10.6% (mean follow up 17 months)., Conclusion: The Australian experience of Fellowship trained surgeons performing LRP demonstrates favourable peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes in comparison to published data for open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. In our Australian centres, LRP remains an acceptable minimally invasive surgical treatment for prostate cancer despite the increasing use of robotic assisted surgery., (© 2016 The Authors BJU International © 2016 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)