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.

Optimizing outcomes in laparoscopic urologic training: toward a standardized global consensus.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic urologic surgery (LUS) is one of the fastest growing subspecialties in the surgical world. The procedures require technical expertise and finesse; unlike their open counterparts, there is significant limitation in the margin for error. Various ethical, medicolegal, and health economy demands have made training in laparoscopic urologic surgery challenging. Whereas several groups have sought solutions through models, there remains a lack of consensus on the optimal training program. We review the current LUS programs with a conscious effort to decipher the basic tenets of an optimal training program and propose training models based on published evidence, in conjunction with current trends in LUS. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar was performed, seeking publications from January 1970 to July 2006 on laparoscopic surgical training pertaining to urology. Additionally, we looked at pertinent abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Urological Association, the European Association of Urology, and the World Congress of Endourology for the period January 1996 to and inclusive of August 2006. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: To date, no study has documented a global consensus on optimal LUS training programs. Our search identified several models, some of which were applied successfully in the form of minifellowships. There remain no clear guidelines on the optimum LUS training program. The optimal program may need to be tailored to individual units, based on resources (this includes country-specific health economics, mentor availability, and caseload). Further studies are needed to help elucidate how individual programs can be initiated with a global minimum standard applicable to all training programs.