4.3 Review

Clinical guideline for male lower urinary tract symptoms

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages 775-790

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02369.x

Keywords

alpha 1-blockers; benign prostatic hyperplasia; guideline; lower urinary tract symptoms; men

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21659370] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article is a shortened version of the clinical guideline for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which has been developed in Japan for symptomatic men aged 50 years and over irrespective of presumed diagnoses. The guideline was formed on the PubMed database between 1995 and 2007 and other relevant sources. The causes of male LUTS are diverse and attributable to diseases/dysfunctions of the lower urinary tract, prostate, nervous system, and other organ systems, with benign prostatic hyperplasia, bladder dysfunction, polyuria, and their combination being most common. The mandatory assessment should comprise medical history, physical examination, urinalysis, and measurement of serum prostate-specific antigen. Symptom and quality of life questionnaires, bladder diary, residual urine measurement, urine cytology, urine culture, measurement of serum creatinine, and urinary tract ultrasonography would be optional tests. The Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Score Questionnaire may be useful in quickly capturing important symptoms. Severe symptoms, pain symptoms, and other clinical problems would indicate urological referral. One should be careful not to overlook underlying diseases such as infection or malignancy. The treatment should be initiated with conservative therapy and/or medicine such as alpha(1)-blockers. Treatment with anticholinergic agents should be reserved only for urologists, considering the risk of urinary retention. The present guideline should help urologists and especially non-urologists treat men with LUTS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available