This study was conducted to determine the role of pre-operative 2 weeks use of Finasteride in reducing intra-operative blood loss in patients undergoing monopolar TURP. Number of enrolled patients were 120, on the basis of inclusion criteria. Patients who were candidates of monopolar TURP were given 5mg Finasteride for 2 weeks before the surgery. On the 13th day of medicine, they got admitted in ward and prepared for surgery. During surgery intra-operative irrigation fluid was measured and gathered, then tested for Hemoglobin and the blood loss was calculated with equation formula. Blood loss evaluation was done on the basis of irrigation fluid, hemoglobin in irrigation fluid, preoperative hemoglobin and resected tissue weight. Significant reduction in blood loss was observed in interventional group as compared to the control group. Mean blood loss was 296ml in Group-A and 370ml in Group-B while blood loss per gram was 11.7ml/g in Group-A and 14.7 ml/g in Group-B. Mean operative time was measured 42 minutes in Group-A and 49 minutes in Group-B. This research proclaims a clear-cut supremacy of pre-operative use of Finasteride for two weeks. It significantly reduces intraoperative blood loss and blood loss per gram in patients undergoing monopolar TURP.

Benign prostatic obstruction (BPH) is a common disease with male and surgical treatment is the gold standard for symptomatic disease. Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) is one of emerging therapies which aims to minimize the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) of BPH and volume of enlarged prostate. We reported here a case of 100-year-old man with 90 cm3 prostate and severe symptoms secondary to BPH, who underwent a successful PAE through distal transradial access without any complication. The patient satisfied with this treatment and no symptoms recurrence after PAE. It demonstrated that PAE was a safe and effective treatment for BPH and was indicated in elderly/ non-surgical candidate.

Parts I and II of this 3-part series indicated how a global review of both English-language and non-English language papers plus a focus on a lipidosterolic extract of Serenoa repens (LSESr) having a standardized fatty acid profile have together engendered new insights about the biological activity of LSESr vs. LUTS. In this last of a 3-part series, data from the world literature is presented that confirms that LSESr efficacy is the predominant finding in clinical trials. Despite two placebo-controlled clinical trials performed in the U.S. that failed to confirm a benefit of LSESr vs. placebo in LUTS, the global body of the peer-reviewed literature attests not only to efficacy but also to safety. Results will be presented of important trials that compare LSESr to alpha-blockers such as tamsulosin (Flomax®) as well as to 5α-reductase inhibitors such as finasteride (Proscar®) that demonstrate consistent findings of near equivalency between LSESr and these pharmacologic agents. Studies relating data indicative of an additive effect or synergy between LSESr and tamsulosin will be presented as well. The heightened effectiveness of LSESr in men with severe LUTS vs. moderate LUTS expands the importance of our scrutinization of the global literature concerning LSESr. Of great consequence are the contributions of non-English language peer-reviewed publications that have consistently provided evidence of LSESr efficacy in treating LUTS/BPH. These peer-reviewed articles have shown that the effect of LSESr is not that of a placebo. Finally, a comparison of the LSESr extraction products used in the treatment of LUTS, and a discussion of the milieu factors that affect the natural history of LUTS and influence the outcome of clinical trials complete this sedulous analysis of LSESr vs. LUTS.

Given the extent of this global analysis, this report will be presented in three sections. Part I will introduce LUTS. What are the demographics of LUTS? What symptoms are assessed by LUTS and how do we quantify LUTS? Why would a non-prescription item be a valuable consideration in LUTS treatment versus other treatment options? What is basic information about Serenoa repens and what defines a standardized LSESr product? What are the published trials that have affected the acceptability of Serenoa repens in the treatment of LUTS? Finally, a major portion of Part I will discuss the four major reviews of Serenoa repens versus LUTS that have influenced how it is accepted in the USA, in Europe, and other parts of the world. Part I, therefore, lays the groundwork and is foundational for the important findings relating to LUTS and Serenoa repens that will be presented in Parts II and III.

Part I of this 3-part series provided the groundwork for understanding the role of a standardized lipidosterolic extract of Serenoa repens (LSESr) in the treatment of LUTS. It documented that a treatment having a high therapeutic index (i.e., a ratio of benefit to adverse reactions) is a critical need in the demographic context of a rapidly growing elder population. Part I described the clinical symptomatology of LUTS and how it is quantified. A critique of the reports from four authoritative bodies: the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (ESCOP), Cochrane 2012, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the AUA (American Urological Association) was presented. The foundation above then fine-tuned our search to require (a) consistent evaluability criteria, (b) the quantification of clinical findings, (c) the need to focus on studies employing a standardized LSESr product meeting the fatty acid profile set forth by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Pharmacopeia and (d) a global assessment of scientific investigations published in all languages and not limited to only English. Part II details the following “new” findings when LSESr vs. LUTS is examined with the above constraints.