Even though evidence based medicine, guidelines and algorithms still represent the pillars of the management of chronic diseases (i.e: hypertension, diabetes mellitus), a patient centred approach has been recently proposed as a successful strategy, in particular to improve drug adherence. Aim of the present review is to evaluate the unmet needs in LUTS/BPH management and the possible impact of a patient centered approach in this setting. A National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) PubMed search for relevant articles published from January 2000 until December 2016 was performed by combining the following MESH terms: patients centred medicine, patient centered care, person centered care, patient centered outcomes, value based care, shared decision making, male, Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, treatment. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). All studies reporting on patient centred approach, shared decision making and evidence-based medicine were included in the review. All original article, reviews, letters, congress abstracts, and editorials comments were included in the review. Studies reporting single case reports, experimental studies on animal models and studies not in English were not included in the review. Overall 751 abstracts were reviewed, out of them 87 full texts were analysed resulting in 36 papers included. The evidence summarised in this systematic review confirmed how a patient centred visit may improve patient’s adherence to medication. Although a patient centred model has been rarely used in urology, management of Low Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) and Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) may represent the perfect ground to experiment and improve this approach. Notwithstanding all the innovations in LUTS/BPO medical treatment, the real life picture is far from ideal. Recent evidence shows a dramatical low drug adherence and satisfaction to medical treatment in LUTS/BPH patients. A patient centred approach may improve drug adherence and some unmet needs in this area, potentially reducing complications and costs. However further well designed studies are needed to confirm this data.

INTRODUCTION: In the past years several reviews have analysed different aspects of surgical techniques for patients with LUTS due to BPE however none of them have concentrated on large prostates treatment exclusively. Moreover, none of the reviews have focused on level 1 evidence which is essential to avoid bias and wrong conclusions. With this knowledge in mind, aim of the present review is to analyze the available randomized clinical trials assessing the management of patients with big prostates (>80 cc). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature using the Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until January 2019 was performed using both the Medical Subjects Heading and free test protocols. The search was conducted by combining the following terms: “Enucleation,” “Prostate,” “Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” “Holmium,” “laser,” “adenomectomy,” “Randomized clinical trial,” “Big” “large” “prostate,” “>80,” “≥80,” “transurethral resection of prostate,” “Thulium,” “Diode,” “laparoscopy,” “robotic,” “Plasmakinetic,” “green light” “532 nm” “YAG” “Lower Urinary tract symptoms”. Only randomized clinical trials were included in the analysis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall 9 RCTs were retrieved with most of them reporting data at 1 year. The present trials compared enucleation, vaporization and open techniques between each other. In terms of perioperative outcomes all the techniques had similar operative times and resected weight however catheterization time and hospital stay were better in endoscopic techniques when compared to open surgery. In terms of functional outcomes (IPSS, QMAX and PVR) none of the techniques was proven superior to the other. When considering complications open procedures carried a higher risk of transfusions while no technique was proven superior to the others in terms of transient urge urinary incontinence, bladder neck contracture and reintervention. Only one trial was retrieved reporting five years data confirming the safety, efficacy and durability of simple prostatectomy SP and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate at five years. CONCLUSIONS: According to our review no technique may be considered better than the other when treating large adenomas. Studies are still lacking to prove long term efficacy and future studies should clarify the role of prostatic artery embolization and minimally invasive simple prostatectomy in the management of prostates larger than 80 mL.