Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Intervene or Wait?

Rc, Bruskewitz

doi:10.1080/21548331.1992.11705436

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The obstruction caused by BPH is managed by traditional surgery, minimally invasive procedures or medical treatments. The realization that as many as 50% of men older than 50 years of age experience some urinary symptoms related to prostatic obstruction and that surgery and minimally invasive procedures can sometimes have poor results has culminated in the increased use of ␣ 1 -adrenergic receptor blockers as fi rstline therapy [3] . Although pressure-fl ow studies are accepted as the single most reliable method for diagnosis of infravesical obstruction and to differentiate it from neurogenic bladder disorders, their invasive nature limits their use on a large scale [4] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Selective Alpha-1-Adrenergic Receptor Blockers on Bladder Weight

Eğilmez¹,

Pourbagher

Güvel³

et al. 2006

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of two different α₁-adrenergic blockers on bladder hypertrophy using ultrasound-estimated bladder weight (UEBW) and to assess the relation between changes in UEBW and other objective and subjective parameters of disease severity in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: 41 men were enrolled in the study and they were subjected to either watchful waiting (group 1) or α₁-adrenergic receptor blocker therapy (group 2 with alfuzosin; group 3 with tamsulosin). The patients were investigated by symptom evaluation using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life score (QOL), uroflowmetry and UEBW. The parameters were assessed again 3 months after initiation of treatment and compared with the initial values. Results: While the mean UEBW increased in group 1 (42.2 ± 10.3 to 52.5 ± 12.2 g), it decreased in both the other groups that received α-blocker therapy (61.3 ± 18.7 to 41.1 ± 13.2 and 59.4 ± 17.2 to 43.5 ± 17.6 g, respectively). In groups 2 and 3, the mean UEBW, post-void residual urine, IPSS and QOL values decreased, and the mean maximum flow rate increased. All of the changes in group 2 and all except QOL in group 3 were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The changes correlated well with each other with regard to treatment success. The highest decreases in UEBW were encountered in patients with heavier bladders. Conclusions: UEBW decreases with α₁-adrenergic receptor blockers. When used together with the other objective and subjective parameters, UEBW is a promising quantitative parameter as a follow-up tool and can be useful in monitoring the therapeutic effects of α₁-adrenergic receptor blockers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%