Transurethral resection and other minimally invasive treatment options for BPH: would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Results from EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) decision-making survey among urologists.

Introduction With the introduction of novel treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), decision making regarding surgical management has become ever more complex. Factors such as clinical exposure, equipment availability, patient characteristics and hospital setting may affect what treatment is offered and an informed patient choice. The aim of this study was to investigate how urologists help patients make decisions regarding BPH management and whether their practice would differ if they were the patient themselves. Material and methods A 52-question survey presenting hypothetical clinical scenarios was distributed to European urologists and trainees/residents online and in person. In each scenario, regarding treatment options for BPH, the participant considered themselves firstly as the treating clinician and secondly as the patient themselves. Details regarding the participants’ clinical experience, awareness of treatment options and exposure to these options were obtained. Results There were 139 participants; 69.8% of whom were consultants, with 82.1% of participants having practiced urology for more than 5 years. A total of 59.7% of urologists consider themselves BPH specialists. Furthermore, 93.5% of those surveyed had performed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), whilst procedures performed the least by participants were minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) options. Only 17.3% had seen and 1.4% had performed all of the treatment options. When considering themselves as a patient within standard practice, there was a preference for HoLEP amongst participants. Conclusions The majority of urologists surveyed had minimal experience to newer BPH techniques and MIST, suggesting that more exposure is required. A higher rate of HoLEP was chosen as a treatment option for urologists themselves as a patient than what they would choose as an option for their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]