ABSTRACT
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (CaP) are major sources of morbidity in older men. Management of these disorders has evolved considerably in recent years. This article provides a focused overview of BPH and CaP management aimed at primary care physicians. Current literature pertaining to BPH and CaP is reviewed and discussed. The management of BPH has been influenced by the adoption of effective medical therapies; nonetheless, surgical intervention remains a valid option for many men. This can be accomplished with well-established standards such as transurethral resection of the prostate or with minimally invasive techniques. Prostate cancer screening remains controversial despite the recent publication of two large clinical trials. Not all prostate cancers necessarily need to be treated. Robot-assisted prostatectomy is a new and increasingly utilised technique for CaP management, although open radical retropubic prostatectomy is the oncological reference standard. The ageing of the population of the developed world means that primary care physicians will see an increasing number of men with BPH and CaP. Close collaboration between primary care physicians and urologists offers the key to successful management of these disorders.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Hyperplasia/therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Disease Progression , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Laser Therapy/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatic Hyperplasia/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatism/etiology , Risk Factors , Transurethral Resection of Prostate/methodsABSTRACT
Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are widely accepted as a means of surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. It has been suggested that surgeon volume influences patient outcomes after IPP implantation. We used a written questionnaire to ask urologists who perform IPP surgery about their practice patterns. Our analysis correlated specific practices to self-reported IPP volume. A written questionnaire was distributed to 1968 urologists. Responses were collated and analyzed. Respondents were defined as high volume implanters (HVIs) if they placed >or=20 IPPs in the year preceding the survey, or low volume implanters (LVIs) if they placed Subject(s)
Penile Implantation/methods
, Penile Implantation/statistics & numerical data
, Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data
, Humans
, Male
, Penile Prosthesis
, Surveys and Questionnaires
, Treatment Outcome
