Research Goes on During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common among elderly people, with significant effects on individuals, caregivers, and the wider health care system. As the elderly population with multiple comorbidities is increasing, the burden of LUTS will increase. This review describes the demographic trends in the aging society, changes in lower urinary tract function with aging, and deterioration of physical and cognitive function in aging, as well as what has been done regarding geriatric urology and what urologists should do to meet the health care needs of the aging population. Frailty and dementia are unmissable factors in the evaluation of elderly patients. Numerous reports have described associations between LUTS and frailty and between LUTS and dementia. Urologists must be aware of the multiplex physical, cognitive, and social characteristics of elderly people. Maintaining a geriatric viewpoint in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of elderly individuals with LUTS will fulfill the unmet needs of elderly people. It is also essential to discuss the treatment and management goals of LUTS with patients and caregivers. Active case identification, appropriate evaluations of LUTS and comorbidities, and a multidisciplinary approach with other health-care professionals are recommended for better treatment and management.

Purpose Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is associated with lower urinary tract symptoms and negatively affects the quality of life. We aimed to investigate the treatment pattern of BPH in South Korea. Methods Information on treatment modalities and diagnoses of BPH was obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-Aged Patient Sample. Data on BPH patients aged ≥60 years from 2012 to 2016 were obtained. We surveyed the treatment pattern of BPH, including the types of drugs used and surgeries performed, according to the type of institution. Results In this study, 18,260–24,657 BPH patients treated between 2012 and 2016 were included. The number of patients showed an increasing pattern, and drug therapy was the major treatment method used for BPH (98.77%). Moreover, the pattern of increased pharmacotherapy use for BPH was reinforced by the increasing number of patients. Prescription of α-blockers only was dominant in this cohort (45.7%). Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was the most commonly used surgical treatment for BPH (53.6%), but it showed a decreasing pattern over time. In contrast, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) showed an increase from 19.4% to 39.7%. Conclusions The most common treatment for BPH was drug therapy, predominantly only α-blocker therapy. The surgical treatment trend has changed from TURP to HoLEP.

Purpose The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in both idiopathic and neurogenic pelvic floor disorders in patients treated at a referral center. Methods This retrospective observational study analyzed the records of 106 patients tested at our department from December 1999 to January 2017. The efficacy variables evaluated were the Global Response Assessment (range, 0%–100%) and, according to the clinical indication, other specific variables such International Consultation on Incontinence QuestionnaireShort Form, number of catheterizations or pads/day, and the numerical pain scale. The safety variables analyzed were complications (pain, migration, infection), reinterventions and explants. Patients’ quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction with the procedure were evaluated through telephone interviews. Results The clinical indications were overactive bladder (OAB) (n=36), urinary retention (UR) (n=37), bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) (n=19), fecal incontinence (FI) (n=8), and double incontinence (DI) (n=6). The implant rates according to the clinical indication were as follows: OAB, 55.6%; UR, 56.8%; BPS/IC, 63.15%; FI, 87.5%; and DI, 66.7%. Clinical and/or statistically significant improvements in all efficacy variables were observed. Loss of therapeutic effect at 75 months of follow-up was observed in 34% of patients. Device-related pain appeared in 25 patients (39%); in 20 patients, it was resolved by reprogramming and 5 patients required device removal. An overall improvement in QoL and high levels of satisfaction with the procedure were observed. More than 90% of patients would recommend SNS to a friend or relative. Conclusions SNS is a minimally invasive procedure that offers a real alternative to patients with refractory pelvic floor dysfunction. Its safety profile is very favorable and it provides a long-lasting improvement in symptoms and QoL.