Synthetic sling or artificial urinary sphincter for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery: the MASTER non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence is common in men after prostate surgery and can be difficult to improve. Implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter is the most common surgical procedure for persistent stress urinary incontinence, but it requires specialist surgical skills, and revisions may be necessary. In addition, the sphincter is relatively expensive and its operation requires adequate patient dexterity. New surgical approaches include the male synthetic sling, which is emerging as a possible alternative. However, robust comparable data, derived from randomised controlled trials, on the relative safety and efficacy of the male synthetic sling and the artificial urinary sphincter are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the male synthetic sling with those of the artificial urinary sphincter surgery in men with persistent stress urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with a parallel non-randomised cohort and embedded qualitative component. Randomised controlled trial allocation was carried out by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1), minimised on previous prostate surgery (radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate), radiotherapy (or not, in relation to prostate surgery) and centre. Surgeons and participants were not blind to the treatment received. Non-randomised cohort allocation was participant and/or surgeon preference. SETTING: The trial was set in 28 UK urological centres in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery for whom surgery was deemed appropriate. Exclusion criteria included previous sling or artificial urinary sphincter surgery, unresolved bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture after prostate surgery, and an inability to give informed consent or complete trial documentation. INTERVENTIONS: We compared male synthetic sling with artificial urinary sphincter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinical primary outcome measure was men's reports of continence (assessed from questions 3 and 4 of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form) at 12 months post randomisation (with a non-inferiority margin of 15%). The primary economic outcome was cost-effectiveness (assessed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months post randomisation). RESULTS: In total, 380 men were included in the randomised controlled trial (n = 190 in each group), and 99 out of 100 men were included in the non-randomised cohort. In terms of continence, the male sling was non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter (intention-to-treat estimated absolute risk difference -0.034, 95% confidence interval -0.117 to 0.048; non-inferiority p = 0.003), indicating a lower success rate in those randomised to receive a sling, but with a confidence interval excluding the non-inferiority margin of -15%. In both groups, treatment resulted in a reduction in incontinence symptoms (as measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form). Between baseline and 12 months' follow-up, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form score fell from 16.1 to 8.7 in the male sling group and from 16.4 to 7.5 in the artificial urinary sphincter group (mean difference for the time point at 12 months 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 2.49; p = 0.032). The number of serious adverse events was small (male sling group, n = 8; artificial urinary sphincter group, n = 15; one man in the artificial urinary sphincter group experienced three serious adverse events). Quality-of-life scores improved and satisfaction was high in both groups. Secondary outcomes that showed statistically significant differences favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. Outcomes of the non-randomised cohort were similar. The male sling cost less than the artificial sphincter but was associated with a smaller quality-adjusted life-year gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for male slings compared with an artificial urinary sphincter suggests that there is a cost saving of £425,870 for each quality-adjusted life-year lost. The probability that slings would be cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for a quality-adjusted life-year was 99%. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up beyond 24 months is not available. More specific surgical/device-related pain outcomes were not included. CONCLUSIONS: Continence rates improved from baseline, with the male sling non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter. Symptoms and quality of life significantly improved in both groups. Men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. FUTURE WORK: Participant reports of any further surgery, satisfaction and quality of life at 5-year follow-up will inform longer-term outcomes. Administration of an additional pain questionnaire would provide further information on pain levels after both surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN49212975. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Leakage of urine associated with physical exertion (e.g. sporting activities, sneezing or coughing) is common in men who have undergone prostate surgery, but it is difficult to improve. Many men still leak urine 12 months after their prostate surgery and may continue to wear protective pads or sheaths. The most common operation to improve incontinence is implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter. An artificial urinary sphincter is an inflatable cuff that is placed around the urethra, the tube that drains urine from the bladder. The cuff is inflated and compresses the urethra to prevent leaking. When the man needs to pass urine, he must deflate the cuff by squeezing a pump placed in his scrotum, which releases the compression on the urethra and allows the bladder to empty. Recently, a new device, the male sling (made from non-absorbable plastic mesh), has been developed. The sling, which is surgically inserted under the urethra, supports the bladder, but, in contrast to the artificial sphincter, it does not need to be deactivated by a pump and, therefore, the patient does not need to do anything to operate it. A sling is also easier for the surgeon to insert than a sphincter. However, in some men, the sling does not provide enough improvement in incontinence symptoms and another operation, to place an artificial urinary sphincter, is needed. The aim of this study was to determine if the male sling was as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter in treating men with bothersome incontinence after prostate surgery. The study took the form of a randomised controlled trial (the gold standard and most reliable way to compare treatments) in which men were randomised (allocated at random to one of two groups using a computer) to either a male sling or an artificial urinary sphincter operation. We asked men how they got on in the first 2 years after their operation. Regardless of which operation they had, incontinence and quality of life significantly improved and complications were rare. A small number of men did require another operation to improve their incontinence, and it was more likely that an artificial urinary sphincter was needed, rather than another sling operation, if a male sling was not successful. Satisfaction was high in both groups, but it was significantly higher in the artificial urinary sphincter group than in the male sling group. Those who received a male sling were less likely than those who received an artificial urinary sphincter to say that they would recommend their surgery to a friend.

The development of the Cystectomy-Pathway Assessment Tool (C-PAT): a concise tool to assess the quality of care in the cystectomy pathway.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and test the psychometric properties of a concise, patient-reported questionnaire, designed to assess key aspects of the radical cystectomy (RC) patient pathway that are important to both patients and clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Draft items were developed by a consultation with a 13-member expert clinical panel, and the in-depth qualitative analysis of 14 semi-structured interviews with patients who had received RC within the previous 18 months. A further nine cognitive interviews with patients refined the items and ensured they were easy to complete. Pilot testing in 122 patients recruited from five hospitals in England tested the properties of validity and reliability of the resulting 17-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients and clinicians identified the following aspects as important for the delivery of quality patient care. These included timely referral and initial test results; an explanation of risk/benefits of treatment; access to a cancer nurse specialist; training and support in stoma management; timely surgery, surgical complications, and timely follow-up. Pilot testing showed missing data was low (≤3% for all items), and between 73% and 89% of the responses to items were the most positive about their care (indicating ceiling effects). Five items were identified using factor analysis as being statistically related (Cronbach's α 0.76, intraclass correlation coefficient test-retest reliability of 0.95) and formed the scored part of the tool 'care and support', scored 0-16. There was insufficient evidence at this stage to show the tool was capable of measuring differences between cancer centres. CONCLUSION: We have developed a questionnaire that captures aspects of quality of care within the RC patient pathway. The results support the validity and reliability of the 17-item Cystectomy-Pathway Assessment Tool (C-PAT). We envisage the tool can be the basis for audit of the patient reported assessment of the quality of care for individual cancer centres.

Assessment of quality in urodynamics: Cough versus valsalva.

INTRODUCTION: To ensure quality, the International Continence Society recommends asking the patient to cough every minute or 50 ml of infused volume. However, on occasions, it was noticed that if cough transmission was poor, Valsalva maneuvers could show pressure transmission was satisfactory. Hence, a study was designed to compare the two methods. METHODS: Cough and Valsalva maneuver pressures were compared in 40 patients, 20 consecutive men and 20 consecutive women, undergoing urodynamics at three time points: baseline (20 ml filling), prevoid and postvoid. RESULTS: At baseline, the percentage difference between pabd and pves was significantly lower for Valsalva maneuvres compared with coughs for all patients (median 5.1% vs. 10.2%). This association was consistent in male patients, but not for female. At prevoid, this was reversed with coughs providing more consistent pressure spikes than Valsalva maneuvers (median 7.0% vs. 24.1%), for all patients. Postvoid, no difference was noted in either men or women. CONCLUSIONS: Quality control during urodynamics is important to ensure diagnostic accuracy. This is the first study to compare two methods of quality control, coughs, and Valsalva maneuvers. Coughs are a useful indicator of pressure transmission quality at all time points throughout urodynamic studies. However, at low volumes, Valsalva maneuvers give a better indication of quality, with lower variability, whereas at cystometric capacity coughs performed better. Therefore, if poor pressure transmission occurs with cough during urodynamics, particularly at low volumes, it is recommended that a Valsalva maneuver is used to further assess whether pressure transmission and thus urodynamic quality is satisfactory.

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: the UNBLOCS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a technique similar to TURP. The small amount of existing literature suggests that there may be potential advantages of ThuVARP over TURP. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not the outcomes from ThuVARP are equivalent to the outcomes from TURP in men with BPO treated in the NHS. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled parallel-group trial, with an embedded qualitative study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seven UK centres - four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged ≥ 18 years who were suitable to undergo TURP, presenting with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised 1 : 1 to receive TURP or ThuVARP and remained blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two co-primary outcomes - patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and clinical measure of maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post surgery. RESULTS: In total, 410 men were randomised, 205 to each arm. The two procedures were equivalent in terms of IPSS [adjusted mean difference 0.28 points higher for ThuVARP (favouring TURP), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 1.49 points]. The two procedures were not equivalent in terms of Qmax (adjusted mean difference 3.12 ml/second in favour of TURP, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.79 ml/second), with TURP deemed superior. Surgical outcomes, such as complications and blood transfusion rates, and hospital stay were similar for both procedures. Patient-reported urinary and sexual symptoms were also similar between the arms. Qualitative interviews indicated similar patient experiences with both procedures. However, 25% of participants in the ThuVARP arm did not undergo their randomised allocation, compared with 2% of participants in the TURP arm. Prostate cancer was also detected less frequently from routine histology after ThuVARP (65% lower odds of detection) in an exploratory analysis. The adjusted mean differences between the arms were similar for secondary care NHS costs (£9 higher for ThuVARP, 95% CI -£359 to £376) and quality-adjusted life-years (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Complications were recorded in prespecified categories; those not prespecified were excluded owing to variable reporting. Preoperative Qmax and IPSS data could not be collected for participants with indwelling catheters, making adjustment for baseline status difficult. CONCLUSIONS: TURP was superior to ThuVARP in terms of Qmax, although both operations resulted in a Qmax considered clinically successful. ThuVARP also potentially resulted in lower detection rates of prostate cancer as a result of the smaller volume of tissue available for histology. Length of hospital stay after ThuVARP, anticipated to be a key benefit, was equal to that after TURP in this trial. Overall, both ThuVARP and TURP were effective procedures for BPO, with minor benefits in favour of TURP. Therefore, the results suggest that it may be appropriate that new treatment alternatives continue to be compared with TURP. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up to assess reoperation rates over time, and research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large prostates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00788389. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An enlarged prostate can make it difficult, or even impossible, for a man to pass urine by blocking the urine flow from the bladder. This can cause significant problems, and 25,000 men in the UK each year are treated with an operation to relieve their symptoms. The standard operation [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)], which uses electricity to shave off the enlarged prostate, is successful, but it can have some complications. There is some evidence to suggest that laser surgery can lead to less blood loss and a shorter stay in hospital, but laser operations can be difficult for surgeons to carry out. This trial has looked at a procedure using a new type of laser called thulium, which uses a very similar surgical technique to TURP and has shown promising results so far. A total of 410 men needing a prostate operation received either TURP or a laser operation. Participants were unaware of which operation they received until the end of the study to ensure a fair comparison. Seven hospitals across the UK were involved over 4 years. The trial mainly assessed the benefits of the operations using a urinary symptom questionnaire completed by participants, and by measuring the speed of passing urine after surgery. Overall, both procedures achieved positive results, and participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the outcomes. Participants who had either operation reported a similar improvement in urinary symptoms in their questionnaires. However, although both operations did a good job of improving the speed of passing urine, TURP was better. Participants experienced few complications, and the complications that did occur were similar after both operations, including levels of bleeding and time spent in hospital. The cost of the two operations to the NHS was also similar. Overall, we concluded that both operations are suitable for patients with prostate enlargement, with TURP showing some minor additional benefits.

Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: the UPSTREAM non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men may indicate bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or weakness, known as detrusor underactivity (DU). Severe bothersome LUTS are a common indication for surgery. The diagnostic tests may include urodynamics (UDS) to confirm whether BOO or DU is the cause, potentially reducing the number of people receiving (inappropriate) surgery. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine whether a care pathway including UDS is no worse for symptom outcome than one in which it is omitted, at 18 months after randomisation. Rates of surgery was the key secondary outcome. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm (unblinded) randomised controlled trial, incorporating a health economic analysis and qualitative research. SETTING: Urology departments of 26 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men (aged ≥ 18 years) seeking further treatment, potentially including surgery, for bothersome LUTS. Exclusion criteria were as follows: unable to pass urine without a catheter, having a relevant neurological disease, currently undergoing treatment for prostate or bladder cancer, previously had prostate surgery, not medically fit for surgery and/or unwilling to be randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Men were randomised to a care pathway based on non-invasive routine tests (control) or routine care plus invasive UDS (intervention arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 18 months after randomisation and the key secondary outcome was rates of surgery. Additional secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), quality of life, urinary and sexual symptoms, UDS satisfaction, maximum urinary flow rate and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 820 men were randomised (UDS, 427; routine care, 393). Sixty-seven men withdrew before 18 months and 11 died (unrelated to trial procedures). UDS was non-inferior to routine care for IPSS 18 months after randomisation, with a confidence interval (CI) within the margin of 1 point (-0.33, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.80). A lower surgery rate in the UDS arm was not found (38% and 36% for UDS and routine care, respectively), with overall rates lower than expected. AEs were similar between the arms at 43-44%. There were more cases of acute urinary retention in the routine care arm. Patient-reported outcomes for LUTS improved in both arms and satisfaction with UDS was high in men who received it. UDS was more expensive than routine care. From a secondary care perspective, UDS cost an additional £216 over an 18-month time horizon. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar, with a QALY difference of 0.006 in favour of UDS over 18 months. It was established that UDS was acceptable to patients, and valued by both patients and clinicians for its perceived additional insight into the cause and probable best treatment of LUTS. LIMITATIONS: The trial met its predefined recruitment target, but surgery rates were lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of UDS in the diagnostic tests results in a symptom outcome that is non-inferior to a routine care pathway, but does not affect surgical rates for treating BOO. Results do not support the routine use of UDS in men undergoing investigation of LUTS. FUTURE WORK: Focus should be placed on indications for selective utilisation of UDS in individual cases and long-term outcomes of diagnosis and therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56164274. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

After hospital referral, men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are assessed with standard tests. These include measurement of urine flow rate, bladder diaries and questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). UPSTREAM (Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods) researched whether or not including an extra test, urodynamics (UDS), helps when considering treatment options. UDS is a more invasive test and measures pressure in the bladder to check whether or not the prostate is causing obstruction. It was presumed that, if there is no obstruction, surgery would not be offered, so that using UDS would reduce the number of prostate operations. Each man participating (820 in total) was assessed with the standard tests. Around half of them had no extra tests (the 'routine care' arm of the trial); the rest had the UDS tests (the 'UDS' arm). Men then went on to have treatment, which they chose having discussed their test results with a urologist. IPSS and other symptom scores were examined for each man 18 months after joining the trial. At 18 months, surgery outcomes were known for 792 men and IPSS was known for 669 men. We investigated if the two trial arms showed similar changes in the IPSS and if there were fewer operations done in the UDS arm. We identified similar reductions in the IPSS in both arms. However, UDS tests did not reduce the number of operations. Analysing all the costs, it was found that a pathway including UDS costs more than routine care. Interviews were conducted that showed that men found UDS acceptable, and that the additional information helped both the men and their doctors consider which treatment would be most appropriate. These results do not support the routine use of UDS in the assessment of every man considering prostate surgery for LUTS. Further exploration of the data may identify circumstances in which UDS could be helpful.

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) is a technique with suggested advantages over TURP, including reduced complications and hospital stay. We aimed to investigate TURP versus ThuVARP in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. METHODS: In this randomised, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic equivalence trial, men in seven UK hospitals with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of surgery to receive ThuVARP or TURP. Patients were masked until follow-up completion. Centres used their usual TURP procedure (monopolar or bipolar). All trial surgeons underwent training on the ThuVARP technique. Co-primary outcomes were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12-months post-surgery. Equivalence was defined as a difference of 2·5 points or less for IPSS and 4 mL per s or less for Qmax. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN00788389. FINDINGS: Between July 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 410 men were randomly assigned to ThuVARP or TURP, 205 per study group. TURP was superior for Qmax (mean 23·2 mL per s for TURP and 20·2 mL per s for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means -3·12, 95% CI -5·79 to -0·45). Equivalence was shown for IPSS (mean 6·3 for TURP and 6·4 for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means 0·28, -0·92 to 1·49). Mean hospital stay was 48 h in both study groups. 91 (45%) of 204 patients in the TURP group and 96 (47%) of 203 patients in the ThuVARP group had at least one complication. INTERPRETATION: TURP and ThuVARP were equivalent for urinary symptom improvement (IPSS) 12-months post-surgery, and TURP was superior for Qmax. Anticipated laser benefits for ThuVARP of reduced hospital stay and complications were not observed. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Diagnostic Assessment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men Considering Prostate Surgery: A Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Urodynamics in 26 Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Prostate surgery can improve lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) by relieving bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). However, surgery is less effective without BOO, or if detrusor underactivity is present. Urodynamics (UDS) can identify BOO and measure detrusor activity, but evidence in clinical practice is lacking. OBJECTIVE: Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial: Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) aimed to evaluate whether a care pathway including UDS would reduce surgery without increasing urinary symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: UPSTREAM is a pragmatic, noninferiority, randomised controlled trial in men with bothersome LUTS, in whom surgery was an option, in 26 hospitals in England (ISRCTN56164274). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised (1:1) to routine care (RC) diagnostic tests, or RC plus UDS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS; patient-reported outcome scale from 0 to 35 points) 18 mo after randomisation, with a noninferiority margin of 1 point. Urological surgery rates were a key secondary outcome. The primary outcome was compared between the arms using linear regression, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between October 2014 and December 2016, 820 men (median age 68 yr) were randomised (393 and 427 in the RC and UDS arms, respectively). The UDS arm showed noninferiority of the mean IPSSs (UDS 12.6; RC 13.1; adjusted difference at 18 mo -0.33 [95% confidence interval {CI} -1.47, +0.80]). In the UDS arm, 153/408 (38%) received surgery compared with 138/384 (36%) in the RC arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.05; 95% CI 0.77, 1.43). A total of 428 adverse events (UDS 234; RC 194) were recorded, with related events similar in both arms and 11 unrelated deaths. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, the UDS randomised group was noninferior to RC for the IPSS but did not reduce surgical rates. This study shows that routine use of UDS in the evaluation of uncomplicated LUTS has a limited role and should be used selectively. PATIENT SUMMARY: For men with uncomplicated lower urinary tract symptoms, symptom improvements after treatment and the number of operations performed are similar, irrespective of whether or not urodynamic tests are conducted in addition to routine tests. Accordingly, routine use of urodynamics has a limited role in this population group.

The cost-effectiveness of transurethral resection of the prostate vs thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate in the UNBLOCS randomised controlled trial for benign prostatic obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the current 'gold standard' operation of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compared to the new laser technique of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) in men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) within the UK National Health Service (NHS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The trial was conducted across seven UK centres (four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals). A total of 410 men aged ≥18 years presenting with either bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO, and suitable for surgery, were randomised (whilst under anaesthetic) 1:1 to receive the TURP or ThuVARP procedure. Resource use in relation to the operation, initial inpatient stay, and subsequent use of NHS services was collected for 12 months from randomisation (equivalent to primary effectiveness outcome) using hospital records and patient questionnaires. Resources were valued using UK reference costs. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire completed at baseline, 3- and 12-months. Total adjusted mean costs, QALYs and incremental Net Monetary Benefit statistics were calculated: cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty. RESULTS: The total adjusted mean secondary care cost over the 12 months in the TURP arm (£4244) was £9 (95% CI -£376, £359) lower than the ThuVARP arm (£4253). The ThuVARP operation took on average 21 min longer than TURP. The adjusted mean difference of QALYs (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI -0.01, 0.04) was similar between the arms. There is a 76% probability that TURP is the cost-effective option compared with ThuVARP at the £20 000 per QALY willingness to pay threshold used by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). CONCLUSION: One of the anticipated benefits of the laser surgery, reduced length of hospital stay with an associated reduction in cost, did not materialise within the study. The longer duration of the ThuVARP procedure is important to consider, both from a patient perspective in terms of increased time under anaesthetic, and from a service delivery perspective. TURP remains a highly cost-effective treatment for men with BPO.

Clinical and Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Men Referred for Consideration of Surgery to Treat Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Baseline Results and Diagnostic Findings of the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM).

BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluation of male lower urinary tract symptoms (MLUTS) in secondary care uses a range of assessments. It is unknown how MLUTS evaluation influences outcome of therapy recommendations and choice, notably urodynamics (UDS; filling cystometry and pressure flow studies). OBJECTIVE: To report participants' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and initial diagnostic findings of the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM). UPSTREAM is a randomised controlled trial evaluating whether symptoms are noninferior and surgery rates are lower if UDS is included. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 820 men (≥18 yr of age) seeking treatment for bothersome LUTS were recruited from 26 National Health Service hospital urology departments. INTERVENTION: Care pathway based on routine, noninvasive tests (control) or routine care plus UDS (intervention arm). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome is International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the key secondary outcome is surgery rates 18 mo after randomisation. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires were captured for MLUTS, sexual function, and UDS satisfaction. Baseline clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and UDS findings were informally compared between arms. Trends across age groups for urinary and sexual PROMs were evaluated with a Cuzick's test, and questionnaire items were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Storage LUTS, notably nocturia, and impaired sexual function are prominent in men being assessed for surgery. Sociodemographic and clinical evaluations were similar between arms. Overall mean IPSS and quality of life scores were 18.94 and 4.13, respectively. Trends were found across age groups, with older men suffering from higher rates of incontinence, nocturia, and erectile dysfunction, and younger men suffering from increased daytime frequency and voiding symptoms. Men undergoing UDS testing expressed high satisfaction with the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Men being considered for surgery have additional clinical features that may affect treatment decision making and outcomes, notably storage LUTS and impaired sexual function. PATIENT SUMMARY: We describe initial assessment findings from a large clinical study of the treatment pathway for men suffering with bothersome urinary symptoms who were referred to hospital for further treatment, potentially including surgery. We report the patient characteristics and diagnostic test results, including symptom questionnaires, bladder diaries, flow rate tests, and urodynamics.

A commentary on expectations of healthcare professionals when applying the international continence society standards to basic assessment of lower urinary tract function.

The International Continence Society (ICS) has sustained a drive to improve the clinical assessment of lower urinary tract function for many years. Increasingly, healthcare professionals (HCPs) engage with the guidance, and patients benefit from the precision that results when their carers apply a sensible and logical approach to assessment. The current supplementary issue of Neurourology and Urodynamics (NAU) summarizes the fundamentals derived from major ICS initiatives, emphasizing what HCPs must know when dealing with these patients, regardless of the medical discipline in which they work. It also introduces the basics of urodynamics testing to trainees and HCPs who may refer patients for testing. In this editorial review we draw out some additional points of consideration. We emphasize the need to avoid using terms in a clinical context that could imply causative mechanism, until the mechanism has actually been identified. We caution against the use of severity thresholds, until there is proper data to justify their application for any given patient group. Finally, we provide a description of the philosophical basis of urodynamics testing, including videourodynamics. This commentary should be read in the context of the other articles provided in the NAU supplement.

A randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the National Health Service (NHS) - the UNBLOCS trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) for 40 years, with approximately 25,000 procedures performed annually, and has remained largely unchanged. It is generally a successful operation, but has well-documented risks for the patient. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a surgical technique similar to TURP. The small amount of study data currently available suggests that ThuVARP may have certain advantages over TURP, including reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stay, earlier return to normal activities, and shorter duration of catheterisation. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial of ThuVARP versus standard TURP in men with BPO. Four hundred and ten men suitable for prostate surgery were randomised to receive either ThuVARP or TURP at four university teaching hospitals, and three district general hospitals. The key aim of the trial is to determine whether ThuVARP is equivalent to TURP judged on both the patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The general population has an increased life expectancy. As men get older their prostates enlarge, potentially causing BPO, which often requires surgery. Therefore, as the population ages, more prostate operations are needed to relieve obstruction. There is hence sustained interest in the condition and increasing need to find safer techniques than TURP. Various laser techniques have become available but none are widely used in the NHS because of lengthy training required for surgeons or inferior performance on clinical outcomes. Promising initial evidence from one RCT shows that ThuVARP has equivalent clinical effectiveness when compared to TURP, as well as other potential advantages. As ThuVARP uses a technique similar to that used in TURP, the learning curve is short, potentially making it also very quickly generalisable. This randomised study is designed to provide the high-quality evidence, in an NHS setting, with a range of patient-reported, clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, which will underpin and inform future NICE guidance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN00788389 . Registered on 20 September 2013.

Qualitative Exploration of the Patient Experience of Underactive Bladder.

BACKGROUND: Underactive bladder (UAB) is considered the symptom complex associated with the urodynamic diagnosis of detrusor underactivity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to investigate the patient reported experience of the symptoms, signs, and impact of UAB. This research is also part of the initial qualitative phase for the development of a new patient reported outcome measure for the assessment of UAB. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative methods were used to understand the experience of UAB from a patient perspective, in a purposive sample of male (n=29) and female (n=15) patients aged 27-88 yr (mean: 64 yr), diagnosed with a primary diagnosis of detrusor underactivity, with or without coexisting urological conditions. Semistructured interviews were conducted in Bristol, UK. RESULTS: Male and female patients reported a variety of lower urinary tract symptoms and associated impact on quality of life. Storage symptoms of nocturia, increased daytime frequency, and urgency, and the voiding symptoms of slow stream, hesitancy, and straining were reported by over half of the patients. A sensation of incomplete emptying and postmicturition dribble were also frequently described. Most had a post void residual >30ml (n=34, 77%, median: 199ml) with many reporting urinary tract infections, a history of self-catheterisation, and some experiencing occasional acute retention episodes. These symptoms and signs can have a broad impact on quality of life including having to plan their daily activities around the location of toilets, disruption to sleep, social life, and associated effect on family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the lived experience of UAB obtained in the current study will be used for the development of a new patient reported outcome measure and help inform the current working definition of UAB. PATIENT SUMMARY: The symptoms, signs, and impact on quality of life of underactive bladder are described by patients with the condition.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5 mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15 mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5 mg to 10 mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a U.K. database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios. RESULTS: Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs. 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY. CONCLUSION: Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.

A contemporary assessment of nocturia: definition, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Nocturia is a common urologic symptom that has been covered in a variety of reported studies in the literature but is not specifically covered in current guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively review the literature pertaining to the definition, etiologies, and consequences of nocturia and assess the evidence supporting the use of conservative medical and interventional therapy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search was conducted using the keyword nocturia, restricted to articles in the English language, after 2000 and before April 2012, in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Regarding treatment modalities, studies were included only if nocturia was a primary end point and if the studies were designed as randomized controlled trials without limit of date. When suitable, a meta-analysis was conducted. Papers covering treatment options for nocturia specifically related to nonurologic conditions were excluded. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nocturia is still defined as the symptom of wakening from sleep once or more often to void. The prevalence is high in both genders and increases with age. Frequency-volume charts, which are the pivotal tool of clinical assessment, detect 24-h polyuria, nocturnal polyuria (NP), or reduced nocturnal bladder capacity and help to target specific nonurologic etiologies. Nocturia is a morbid condition that significantly affects quality of life and increases mortality. Besides behavioral measures, validated treatment options include oral desmopressin, which is superior to placebo in treating NP. While the level of evidence for desmopressin is high, limited data support the use of α1-blockers and antimuscarinics; however, only rarely has nocturia been a primary end point when studying these drug classes, and studies have not consistently controlled for the effect of NP. CONCLUSIONS: Our knowledge of nocturia, its etiology, and its management has substantially improved in recent years. The evidence available on the management of nocturia remains limited; contributory factors include (1) the complexity of associated conditions, (2) the underuse of objective evaluation tools, and (3) the lack of specific focus on nocturia in clinical trials.

The future of urology.

The Future of Urology has been written in times of economic downturn, with the inevitable effects on health sector spending. Nevertheless, this document aims to define a path whereby the EAU can play a pivotal role in ensuring the highest standard of care throughout Europe, and by setting standards, throughout the rest of the world. The future of urology will be dependent on improved education and training leading to high quality urological care, and to developing a service that is patient focused. The patient focus is becoming increasingly important in urology. This means providing full information about disease processes and urological procedures to patients and allowing them to judge the quality of the urological service that they may choose. Education must start in medical school and as 5% of community medical practice is urology then every medical student must receive urological training. This also applies to nurses and the other professions allied to medicine (PAMS). The EAU should provide a urological curriculum for training of medical students, nurses and PAMS, as well as the more conventional curriculum for postgraduate training and continued medical education for urological specialists. An integrated EAU Knowledge and Learning Centre would provide an invaluable resource to patients and to those who deliver urologic care alike. With high quality training must come a vigorous assessment of knowledge and competence. In the future, the competence of all those delivering urological care will need to be assessed. For urologists in training and specialist urologists this will include not only an assessment of knowledge but an assessment of surgical competence. Improving quality will be supported by the continued subspecialisation of urology, ensuring that all urologists have a surgical portfolio which ensures their competency in the procedures they deliver. This will inevitably result in a concentration of urological services and indeed to the development of larger urological centres. The concept of Centres of Excellence could be developed to include all aspects and subspecialties of urological care. The SPO envisages that all urology will be carried out in Centres of Excellence which will vary in terms of their size and the range of urology offered, but nevertheless all urological care will be of the highest quality. Finally, the future of urology will depend on the medico-political interface and the EAU has a great deal to offer in this respect. The patterns of urological care differ throughout Europe but this should be seen as a challenge for the EAU to define quality, irrespective of the different methods of healthcare provision. The EAU has made extraordinary advances in the last two decades and the SPO hope this document will support the EAU's efforts to maintain its aim of improving urological care for the benefit of patients.

Urinary urgency: a review of its assessment as the key symptom of the overactive bladder syndrome.

PURPOSE: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common condition that is associated with a negative impact on quality of life. Urgency is the essential symptom when making a diagnosis, and its effective treatment is a principal aim in OAB management. However, urgency has often been relatively neglected as an outcome measure in clinical trials. The aim of this review is, first, to describe the background to urgency in OAB; second, to determine whether results provided by several tools used to measure urgency in clinical trials could be cross-related to each other in a meaningful way. METHODS: The wording of various tools used to measure urgency in OAB was compared against the definition of urgency proposed by the International Continence Society (ICS). Urgency data were evaluated from two randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials with solifenacin in which seven tools were used to measure urgency as a primary or secondary outcome. In particular, subanalyses were available from these tools, which measured urgency equating to the ICS definition, excluding data points that could be interpreted as normal/strong desire to void. RESULTS: Baseline scores for ICS-defined urgency differed between the tools, which might reflect imprecision in their wording and consequent overlap between urgency and normal/strong desire to void. All the tools detected broadly similar mean percentage reductions in the number of urgency episodes from baseline to the endpoint of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Urgency should be the primary or co-primary endpoint for future studies of OAB and detrusor overactivity. Greater clarity is needed in the development of instruments for measuring urgency, so that they do not confuse urgency with normal bladder sensations; more education and guidance are needed on how urgency is defined.

Nocturia: new directions.

The Nocturia Think Tank (TT) met during the 2010 meeting of the International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society to discuss present knowledge and future directions in care and research of this prominent component of the spectrum of lower urinary tract symptoms. Questions raised included whether nocturia should be re-defined as a function of its bother, effects on quality of life, and economic impact upon society. At issue is the need to delineate the determinants of successful nocturia management. The multifactorial nature of nocturia requires that progress in its treatment will be dependent upon the cooperative investigation on the part of urologists, urogynecologists, geriatricians, epidemiologists, medical economists and pharma. Areas for future avenues of research were outlined at the conclusion of the meeting.

Could the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on urodynamics in urinary incontinence put some women at risk of a bad outcome from stress incontinence surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential impact of the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommendation that preoperative urodynamics are not necessary for women with 'pure symptoms of stress urinary incontinence' (SUI), by using data from a population of women referred with lower urinary tract symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study of 6276 women with UI, from an electronic database at a tertiary referral centre, information was collected and entered into a urodynamics computer database at the time of history taking and before conducting the tests. The database was used to identify women aged 18-80 years who had multichannel cystometry for UI over a 17-year period (1 January 1990 to 31 December 2006). To apply the NICE criterion of a 'clearly defined clinical diagnosis of pure SUI', strict selection criteria were used to identify patients with pure SUI. The reliability of the patients' history in predicting 'pure' urodynamic SUI in patients with 'pure' SUI was investigated. The correspondence of the symptomatic diagnosis of pure SUI with the urodynamic findings was assessed, and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated using contingency tables. RESULTS: Only 324 (5.2%) women had pure SUI; moreover, a quarter of those with pure SUI symptoms ultimately had urodynamic diagnoses other than urodynamic SUI, that could affect the outcome of continence surgery. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that only a small group of women fulfil the NICE criteria of pure SUI. These strict criteria do not ensure that all women with potentially important urodynamic findings are evaluated accordingly. Therefore, we suggest that this NICE recommendation was unwise and, furthermore, was not based on properly acquired expert opinion.

Suprapubic catheter insertion is an outpatient procedure: cost savings resultant on closing an audit loop.

OBJECTIVE: To explore, by an audit, the regional practice of inserting a suprapubic catheter (SPC), and to prospectively determine the proportion of patients that can be successfully managed on an outpatient basis in one department. METHODS: Both local and regional practice were determined by a retrospective analysis of the hospital database for all cases of SPC insertion between April 2005 and March 2006. In addition, a questionnaire was e-mailed to each of 11 urology departments. Locally, from August 2006 onwards, all patients scheduled for SPC insertion were referred to a new clinic, where the SPC was inserted using a new SPC kit and the Seldinger technique. RESULTS: Locally, 66 patients (mean age 70 years, range 26-93) had a SPC inserted between April 2005 and March 2006; 49 had an elective procedure while 17 were emergency admissions. The median (range) hospital stay was 3.5 (1-85) days. Within the region, 480 SPCs were inserted in theatre during the same period, of which 52% (249) were inserted as elective inpatients, 11% (52) were inserted as a day case, and 37% (179) had SPCs as emergency admissions. A nurse-led outpatient service was available in two hospitals, where 89% of patients seen in the clinic had successful insertion under local anaesthesia, and only 11% were referred for insertion under general anasthesia. Between August 2006 and July 2007, 50 of 54 patients had a SPC inserted successfully in the new SPC clinic. There were no major complications. The cost benefits of adopting an outpatient management strategy were significant, at approximately GB 100,000 pounds/year in our hospital, 790,000 pounds/year in the region and 9,500,000 pounds/year for the UK. CONCLUSION: An outpatient procedure for a SPC is safe and feasible in most patients, and its widespread use would produce considerable cost savings.