[The choice of individual treatment strategy in geriatric patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with consideration of indications and contraindications for elective isolated and simultaneous interventions].

AIM: To develop a rationale treatment strategy for elective isolated and simultaneous interventions in geriatric patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) aimed at decreasing of complications rate and grade, based on current approach to indications and contraindications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2015 yy. a total of 639 elderly and senile patients with BPH were undergone to isolated simple prostatectomy, transurethral prostatic resection and simultaneous surgery. Two timeframe were allocated, from 2000 to 2006 and from 2007 to 2015 yy. During the first period, the conventional indications and contraindications were used for determination of the type and volume of the the surgery. During the second period, a novel authors approach to the structure indications and contraindications for the surgical treatment was introduced.

RESULTS: For the first time in the geriatric urology a modern structure of the indications and contraindications for elective interventions in patients with BPH has been developed, which allowed to clarify the treatment strategy on the individual basis. The new criteria for absolute and relative contraindications are included as well as, for the first time, temporary, specific and organizational contraindications for the simple prostatectomy and TURP. There is a need for review some conventional contraindications for the TURP in elderly and senile patients, considering that in specialized geriatric urological hospital for patients with severe concomitant diseases (therapeutic, neurologic, etc.), TURP should be the method of choice regardless prostate volume, often exceeding 60 cc. The use of a new structure of indications and contraindications allowed to establish absolute contraindications for the elective surgery in 19%, relative contraindications in 21% and temporary contraindications in 8% cases, respectively. These patients were undergone to palliative surgeries or drug treatment which helped to prevent possible postoperative complications and mortality.

CONCLUSION: In order to determine the treatment strategy in elective isolated and simultaneous interventions in geriatric patients with BPH it is necessary to consider the current general and specific indications as well as absolute, relative, specific, temporary and organizational contraindications. The introduction of the novel structure of the indications and contraindications for the elective isolated and simultaneous surgeries with priority of TURP had a pronounced clinical effect, contributing to the marked reduction of postoperative complications and deaths in geriatric patients with BPH.