Search

PurposeIn 2023 the American Urological Association (AUA) requested an Update Literature Review (ULR) to incorporate new evidence generated since the 2019 publication of this Guideline. The resulting 2024 Guideline Amendment addresses updated recommendations to provide guidance for the care of patients with incontinence after prostate treatment (IPT).Materials and methodsIn 2023, the IPT Guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into previously published guidelines. There were 82 studies of interest initially identified in preliminary abstract review. Following full-text review, 17 studies met inclusion criteria and ultimately informed the statements of interest.ResultsThe Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements based on an updated review to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience IPT. These updates are detailed herein.ConclusionsAs prostate treatments are refined, a decreasing incidence of incontinence is anticipated. This Guideline will require further review as the diagnostic and treatment options for patients with IPT continue to evolve.

PurposeThe purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of Peyronie's disease.Materials and methodsA systematic review of the literature using the PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 1/26/15) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of PD. The review yielded an evidence base of 303 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria.ResultsThe systematic review was used to create guideline statements regarding treatment of PD. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high quality evidence; high certainty), B (moderate quality evidence; moderate certainty), or C (low quality evidence; low certainty). Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional consensus statements related to the diagnosis of PD are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions due to insufficient published evidence.ConclusionsThere is a continually expanding literature on PD; the Panel notes that this document constitutes a clinical strategy and is not intended to be interpreted rigidly. The most effective approach for a particular patient is best determined by the individual clinician and patient in the context of that patient's history, values, and goals for treatment. As the science relevant to PD evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.