Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostik und Differenzialdiagnostik des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS)

Leitlinien der Deutschen Urologen

Diagnostic and differential diagnosis of benign prostate syndrome (BPS)

Guidelines of the German Urologists

  • Leitlinien der DGU und BDU
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Aarnink RG, De la Rosette JJ, Debruyne FMJ et al (1996) Reproducibility of prostate volume measurements from transrectal ultrasonography by an automated and a manual technique. Br J Urol 78:219–223

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aarnink RG, De la Rosette JJ, Debruyne FMJ et al (1996) Formula-derived prostate volume determination. Eur Urol 29:399–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL et al (1988) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. The International Continence Society Committee on Standardisation of Terminology. Scand J Urol Nephrol 5–19

  4. Abrams P (1994) New words for old: lower urinary tract symptoms for „prostatism“. Br Med J 308:929–930

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Abrams P (1995) Objective evaluation of bladder outlet obstruction. Br J Urol 76:11–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abrams P, D’Ancona LC, Griffith D et al (2006) Lower urinary tract symptom: etiology, patient assessment and predicting outcome from therapy. In: McConnell J, Abrams P, Denis L et al (eds) Male lower urinary tract dysfunction evaluation and management. 6th International Consultation on New Developments in Prostate Cancer and Prostate Diseases, Paris, pp 69–142

  8. Ahyai SA, Lehrich K, Kuntz RM (2007) Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 52:1456–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ameda K, Koyanagi T, Nantani M et al (1994) The relevance of preoperative cystometrography in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlating the findings with clinical features and outcome after prostatectomy. J Urol 152:443–447

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Andersen JT, Wolf H, Ekman P et al (1996) Finasteride in symtomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy. A 2-year placebo-controlled study. Ugeskr Laeger 158:5030–5035

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson JB, Roehborn CG, Schalken JA et al (2001) The progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia: examining the evidence and determining the risk. Eur Urol 39:390–399

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson JR, Strickland D, Corbin D et al (1995) Age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen. Urology 46:54–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Anyanwu SN (1995) Is routine urography necessary in all patients undergoing suprapubic transvesical prostatectomy? East Afr Med J 72:78–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. AUA Practice Guidelines Committee (2003) AUA guideline on management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Chapter 1: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 170:530–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bachmann A, Schurch L, Ruszat R et al (2005) Photoselective vaporization (PVP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): a prospective bi-centre study of perioperative morbidity and early functional outcome. Eur Urol 48:965–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barry MJ, Cockett AT, Holtgrewe HL et al (1993) Relationship of symptoms of prostatism to commonly used physiological and anatomical measures of the severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 150:351–358

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Belal M, Abrams P (2006) Noninvasive methods of diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in men. Part 1: Nonurodynamic approach. J Urol 176:22–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bergdahl S, Aus G, Lodding P et al (1999) Transrectal ultrasound with separate measurement of the transition zone predicts the short-term outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate. Urology 53:926–930

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Berges R, Pientka L (1999) Management of the BPH syndrome in Germany: who is treated how? Eur Urol 36(Suppl 3): 21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berges R, Pientka L, Hoefner K et al (2001) Male lower urinary tract symptoms and related health care seeking in Germany. Eur Urol 39:682–687

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bosch JLHR (1995) Postvoid residual urine in the evaluation of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 13:17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bosch JLHR, Hop WCJ, Kirkels WJ et al (1995) The international prostate symptom score in a community-based sample of men between 55 and 74 years of age: prevalence and correlation of symptoms with age, prostate volume, flow rate and residual urine volume. Br J Urol 75:622–630

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bruskewitz RC, Iversen P, Madsen PO (1982) Value of postvoided residual urine determination in evaluation of prostatism. Urology 20:602–604

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chancellor MB, Blaivas JG, Kaplan SA et al (1991) Bladder outlet obstruction versus impaired detrusor contractility: the role of outflow. J Urol 145:810–812

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chandiramani VA, Palace J, Fowler CJ (1997) How to recognize patients with parkinsonism who should not have urological surgery. Br J Urol 80:100–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cimentepe E, Unsal A, Saglam R (2003) Randomized clinical trial comparing transurethral needle ablation with transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: results at 18 months. J Endourol 17:103–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. De la Rosette JJ, de Wildt MJ, Höfner K et al (1996) Pressure-flow-study analysis in patients treated with high energy thermotherapy. J Urol 156:1428–1433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Djavan B, Roehrborn CG, Shariat S et al (1999) Prospective randomized comparison of high energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy versus alpha-blocker treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 161:139–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Djavan B, Seitz C, Roehrborn CG et al (2001) Targeted transurethral microwave thermotherapy versus alpha-blockade in benign prostatic hyperplasia: outcomes at 18 months. Urology 57:66–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dörsam J, Kälble T, Riedasch G et al (1994) Wertigkeit der bildgebenden Diagnostik bei benigner Prostatahyperplasie und beim Prostatakarzinom. Radiologe 34:101–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Drach GW, Layton TN, Binard W (1979) Male peak flow rate: Relationship to volume voided and age. J Urol 122:210–214

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. El Din KE, Kiemeney LA, de Wildt MJ et al (1996) Correlation between uroflowmetry, prostate volume, postvoid residue, and lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the international prostate symptom score. Urology 48:393–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. El Din KE, Koch WF, de Wildt MJ et al (1996) The predictive value of microscopic haematuria in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 30:409–413

    Google Scholar 

  34. Emberton M, Andriole GL, de La Rosette JJ et al (2003) Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a progressive disease of aging men. Urology 61:267–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Emberton M (2006) Definition of at-risk patients: dynamic variables. BJU Int 97:12–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Eri LM, Wessel N, Tysland O et al (2002) Comparative study of pressure-flow parameters. Neurourol Urodyn 21:186–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Frimodt MP, Jensen KM, Iversen P et al (1984) Analysis of presenting symptoms in prostatism. J Urol 132:272–276

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gerber GS (1996) The role of urodynamic study in the evaluation and management of men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 48:668–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gilpin SA, Gosling JA, Barnard RJ (1985) Morphological and morphometric studies of the human obstructed, trabeculated urinary bladder. Br J Urol 57:525–529

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Griffiths D, Harrison G, Moore K et al (1994) Long-term changes in urodynamics studies of voiding in the elderly. Urol Res 22:235–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Griffiths D, Höfner K, van Mastrigt R et al (1997) Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: pressure-flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance, and urethral obstruction. Neurourol Urodyn 16:1–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Griffiths K, Coffey D, Cockett AT et al (1996) The regulation of prostatic growth. In: Cockett ATK, Khoury S, Aso Y et al (eds) The 3rd international consultation on benign prostatic hyerplasia (BPH). Scientific Communication International Ltd, Monaco, pp 73–121

  43. Hald T (1989) Urodynamics in benign prostatic hyperplasia. A survey. Prostate 2(Suppl):69–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hampson SJ, Noble JG, Richards D et al (1992) Does residual urine predispose to urinary tract infection? Br J Urol 70:506–508

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Harzmann R, Weckermann D (1995) Diagnostik und Therapie des Prostataadenoms – Bewährtes und Neues. Med Welt 46:454–457

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hill B, Belville W, Bruskewitz RC et al (2004) Transurethral needle ablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. J Urol 171:2336–2340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hoffman RM, MacDonald R, Monga M et al (2004) Transurethral microwave thermotherapy vs transurethral resection for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review. BJU Int 94:1031–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Höfner K, Kramer AEJL, Tan HK et al (1995) CHESS classification of bladder-outflow obstruction. A consequence in the discussion of current concepts. World J Urol 13:59–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Homma Y, Gothoh M, Takei M et al (1998) Predictability of conventional tests for the assessment of bladder outflow obstruction in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Urol 5:61–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Jacobsen SJ (1995) Do prostate size and urinary flow rates predict health care-seeking behavior for urinary symptoms in men? Urology 45:64–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ et al (1997) Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol 158:481–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Jacobsen SJ, Jacobsen DJ, Girman CJ et al (2003) Acute urinary retention in community-dwelling men: 9-year follow-up of the Olmsted County study of urinary symptoms and health status among men. J Urol 169: 1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Javle P, Jenkins SA, West C et al (1996) Quantification of voiding dysfunction in patients awaiting transurethral prostatectomy. J Urol 156:1014–1019

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Jensen KM, Bruskewitz RC, Iversen P et al (1983) Predictive value of voiding pressures in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn 2:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jonas U, Höfner K (1996) Symptom scores, watchful waiting and prostate specific antigen levels in benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 156:1040–1041

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kaplan SA, Te AE (1995) Uroflowmetry and urodynamics. Urol Clin North Am 22:309–320

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kaplan SA, Reis RB (1996) Significant correlation of the American Urological Association symptom score and a novel urodynamic parameter: Detrusor contraction duration. J Urol 156:1668–1672

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaplan SA (2006) Update on the American Urological Association guidelines for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Rev Urol 8(Suppl 4):10–17

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kessler TM, Gerber R, Burkhard FC et al (2006) Ultrasound assessment of detrusor thickness in men - can it predict bladder outlet obstruction and replace pressure flow study? J Urol 175:2170–2173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Koch WR, El Din KE, de Wildt MJ et al (1996) The outcome of renal ultrasound in the assessment of 556 consecutive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 155:186–189

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Kojima M, Inui E, Ochiai A et al (1996) Ultrasonic estimation of bladder weight as a measure of bladder hypertrophy in men with infravesical obstruction: a preliminary report. Urology 47:942–947

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Kojima M, Inui E, Ochiai A et al (1997) Noninvasive quantitative estimation of infravesical obstruction using ultrasonic measurement of bladder weight. J Urol 157:476–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Kurita Y, Masuda H, Terada H et al (1998) Transition zone index as a risk factor for acute urinary retention in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 51:595–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kursh ED, Concepcion R, Chan S et al (2003) Interstitial laser coagulation versus transurethral prostate resection for treating benign prostatic obstruction: a randomized trial with 2-year follow-up. Urology 61(3):573–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Levin RM, Haugaard N, O‚Connor L et al (2000) Obstructive response of human bladder to BPH vs. rabbit bladder response to partial outlet obstruction: a direct comparison. Neurourol Urodyn 19:609–629

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Lieber MM, Jacobsen DJ, Girman CJ et al (2003) Incidence of lower urinary tract symptom progression in community-dwelling men: 9-year follow-up of the Olmsted County study of urinary symptoms and health status among men. J Urol 169:1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lim CS, Abrams P (1995) The Abrams-Griffiths Nomogram. World J Urol 13:34–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Madersbacher S, Klingler HC, Diavan B et al (1997) Is obstruction predictable by clinical evaluation in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms? Br J Urol 80:72–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Madersbacher S, Alivizatos G, Nordling J et al (2004) EAU 2004 guidelines on assessment, therapy and follow-up of men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPH guidelines). Eur Urol 46:547–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Madsen FA, Bruskewitz RC (1995) Cystoscopy in the evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 13:14–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Manieri C, Carter SS, Romano G et al (1998) The diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in men by ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness. J Urol 159:761–765

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Marberger MJ, Andersen JT, Nickel JC et al (2000) Prostate volume and serum prostate-specific antigen as predictors of acute urinary retention. Combined experience from three large multinational placebo-controlled trials. Eur Urol 38:563–568

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Mattiasson A, Wagrell L, Schelin S et al (2007) Five-year follow-up of Feedback Microwave Thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Urology 69:91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. McConnell J, Bruskewitz R, Walsh P et al (1998) The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 338:557–563

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Slawin KM et al (2003) Baseline measures predict the risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia clinical progression in placebo-treated patients. J Urol 169:1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Meigs JB, Barry MJ, Giovannucci E et al (1999) Incidence rates and risk factors for acute urinary retention: the health professionals followup study. J Urol 162:376–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Minardi D, Garofalo F, Yehia M et al (2001) Pressure-flow studies in men with benign prostatic hypertrophy before and after treatment with transurethral needle ablation. Urol Int 66:89–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Mochtar CA, Kiemeney LA, van Riemsdijk MM et al (2006) Post-void residual urine volume is not a good predictor of the need for invasive therapy among patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 175:213–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Nathan MS, Seenivasagam K, Mei Q et al (1996) Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate? Br J Urol 77:401–407

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Netto NR, D’Ancona CAL, Lopes de Lima M (1996) Correlation between the International Prostatic Symptom Score and a pressure-flow study in the evaluation of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 155:200–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Oelke M, Höfner K, Wiese B et al (2002) Increase in detrusor wall thickness indicates bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men. World J Urol 19:443–452

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Oelke M, Höfner K, Jonas U et al (2006) Ultrasound measurement of detrusor wall thickness in healthy adults. Neurourol Urodyn 25:308–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Oelke M, Höfner K, Jonas U et al (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tests to evaluate bladder outlet obstruction in men: detrusor wall thickness, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine, and prostate volume. Eur Urol 52:827–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Reynard JM, Yang Q, Donovan JL et al (1998) The ICS-’BPH‘ Study: uroflowmetry, lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction. Br J Urol 82:619–623

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Rigatti L, Naspro R, Salonia A et al (2006) Urodynamics after TURP and HoLEP in urodynamically obstructed patients: are there any differences at 1 year of follow-up? Urology 67:1193–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Roehrborn CG, Chinn HK, Fulgham PF et al (1986) The role of transabdominal ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. J Urol 135:1190–1193

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Roehrborn CG, Girman CJ, Rhodes T et al (1997) Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound. Urology 49:548–557

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Bergner D et al (1999) Serum prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume predict long-term changes in symptoms and flow rate: results of a four-year, randomized trial comparing finasteride versus placebo. PLESS Study Group. Urology 54:662–669

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Gould AL et al (1999) Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of prostate volume in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 53:581–589

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Lieber MM et al (1999) Serum prostate-specific antigen concentration is a powerful predictor of acute urinary retention and need for surgery in men with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 53:473–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Roehrborn CG, McConnell J, Bonilla J et al (2000) Serum prostate specific antigen is a strong predictor of future prostate growth in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. PROSCAR long-term efficacy and safety study. J Urol 163:13–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Saltzman B et al (2002) Storage (irritative) and voiding (obstructive) symptoms as predictors of benign prostatic hyperplasia progression and related outcomes. Eur Urol 42:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Roehrborn CG (2006) Definition of at-risk patients: baseline variables. BJU Int 97:7–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Rosier PF, de la Rosette JJ (1995) Is there a correlation between prostate size and bladder-outlet obstruction? World J Urol 13:9–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Rosier PF, de la Rosette JJ, Koldewijn EL et al (1995) Variability of pressure-flow analysis parameters in repeated cystometry in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 153:1520–1525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Rossi C, Kortmann BB, Sonke GS et al (2001) alpha-Blockade improves symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction but fails to relieve it. J Urol 165:38–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Rule AD, Jacobson DJ, McGree ME et al (2005) Longitudinal changes in post-void residual and voided volume among community dwelling men. J Urol 174:1317–1321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Rule AD, Lieber MM, Jacobsen SJ (2005) Is benign prostatic hyperplasia a risk factor for chronic renal failure? J Urol 173:691–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Schäfer W (1985) Urethral resistance? Urodynamic concepts of physiological and pathological bladder outlet function during voiding. Neurourol Urodyn 4:161–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Schäfer W, Tammela TL, Barrett DM et al (1999) Continued improvement in pressure-flow parameters in men receiving finasteride for 2 years Finasteride Urodynamics Study Group Urology 54:278–283

    Google Scholar 

  101. Schleicher C, Neumann R, Kaiser WA et al (1997) Zur Indikation der intravenösen Urographie. Med Klin 92:79–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Steele GS, Sleep DJ (1997) Transurethral needle ablation of the prostate: a urodynamic based study with 2-year followup. J Urol 158:1834–1838

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. van Venrooij GEPM, Boon TA (1996) The value of symptom score, quality of life score, maximal urinary flow rate, residual volume and prostate size for the diagnosis of obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia: a urodynamic analysis. J Urol 155:2014–2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Witjes WP, de Wildt MJ, Rosier PF et al (1996) Variability of clinical and pressure-flow study variables after 6 month of watchful waiting in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic enlargement. J Urol 156:1026–1034

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Witjes WPJ, Robertson A, Rosier PF et al (1997) Urodynamic and clinical effects of noninvasive and minimally invasive treatments in elderly men with lower urinary tract symptoms stratified according to the grade of obstruction. Urology 50:55–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PAN-Klinik, Köln, Deutschland

    R. Berges

  2. Urologische Praxis, Bremen, Deutschland

    K. Dreikorn

  3. Urologische Klinik, Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Oberhausen, Deutschland

    K. Höfner

  4. Donauspital, Wien, Österreich

    S. Madersbacher

  5. Academisch Medisch Centrum, Universität, Amsterdam, Niederlande

    M.C. Michel &  M. Oelke

  6. Diakoniekrankenhaus, Rotenburg/Wümme, Deutschland

    R. Muschter

  7. Klinik für Urologie und Urologische Onkologie, Medizinische Hochschule, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland

    M. Oelke

  8. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Großhadern, München, Deutschland

    O. Reich

  9. Urologische Praxis, Erkrath, Deutschland

    W. Rulf

  10. Urologische Praxis, Münster, Deutschland

    C. Tschuschke

  11. Urologische Klinik, Klinikum, Offenbach, Deutschland

    U. Tunn

Authors
  1. R. Berges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Dreikorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Höfner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Madersbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M.C. Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Muschter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Oelke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. O. Reich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. W. Rulf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. C. Tschuschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. U. Tunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Oelke.

Appendix

Appendix

Evidenzbeurteilung publizierter Studien

  • Level 1a: Evidenz aus Metaanalysen randomisierter Studien,

  • Level 1b: Evidenz aus mindestens einer randomisierten Studie mit guter Qualität,

  • Level 2a: Evidenz aus einer gut durchgeführten (experimentellen) Studie ohne Randomisierung,

  • Level 2b: Evidenz aus mindestens einer gut durchgeführten, quasi experimentellen Studie, Kohortenstudien,

  • Level 3: Evidenz aus einer gut durchgeführten, nicht-experimentellen Studie, z. B. Vergleichsstudie, Korrelationsuntersuchung oder „case report“,

  • Level 4: Evidenz aus Expertenkommissionen, Expertenmeinungen oder klinische Evidenz von anerkannten Autoritäten.

Grad der Empfehlung

  • Grad A: Basiert auf klinischen Studien von guter Qualität und Konsistenz, welche spezifische Empfehlungen gegeben haben und mindestens eine randomisierte Studie beinhalten (konsistente Level-1-Untersuchungen).

  • Grad B: Basiert auf gut durchgeführten klinischen Studien, aber ohne randomisierte klinische Studien (konsistente Level-2- oder -3-Studien).

  • Grad C: Basiert ohne direkt zutreffende klinische Studien von guter Qualität (Level-4-Untersuchungen oder Level-2/3-Untersuchungen mit mehrheitlicher Evidenz).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berges, R., Dreikorn, K., Höfner, K. et al. Diagnostik und Differenzialdiagnostik des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS). Urologe 48, 1356–1364 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-009-2066-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-009-2066-5

Search

Navigation