An analysis of modern recommendations of the European Association of Urologists (EAU) regarding diagnosis and treatment options for overactive bladder (OAB) in men was carried out, taking into account real practice. The article discusses the general principles of diagnosis and treatment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the case where the predominant clinical features are urgency, pollakiuria, nocturia, which can be combined with urinary incontinence – complaints typical of GSM. Approaches to the treatment of such patients are still not clearly defined, and the effectiveness of treatment does not always satisfy both doctors and patients. It is indicated that in recent years, doctors have received completely new treatment options for this disease in men. In addition to adrenoblockers (AB) and cholinolytics (HL), phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (IPDE) and beta-3 adrenomimetics (BAM) were added, which showed their effectiveness and safety not only in women, but also in men. In addition, new options for combined treatment appeared in the recommendations – in addition to AB+HL, a combination of AB+IPDE and HL+BAM is possible. The article discusses various groups of drugs and their combinations recommended for the treatment of LUTS, the specifics of their use and possible side effects, especially the risks of urinary retention in men with infravesical obstruction. It is emphasized that the EAU currently recommends the use of HL in men with moderate and severe LUTS, who mainly have symptoms of accumulation with a residual urine of no more than 150 ml. It is recommended to determine the patient’s residual urine after a week of taking HL. The practical aspects of choosing the category of patients to be treated with certain drugs (or their combinations) are discussed, taking into account the possible side effects of each of the treatment options.

Last decades urologist started to performed big amount of complicated oncological operation with substantial risk of both venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding. Prophylaxis of VTE remains a vital problem, as it is potentially fatal and is associated with significant morbidity. Prophylaxis of this complication is not clearly defined and is mainly based on information from other surgical specialties (like orthopedic or general surgery). Scientific publications dedicated VTE prophylaxis in field of urology were reported only in the last decade. Most studies showed that pharmacological prophylaxis decreases the relative risk of VTE in surgical patients by approximately 50%, but with an increase in the relative risk of postoperative major bleeding of 50%. Main models for evaluation of different VTE risk factors were analyzed. The most important risk factors for VTE are age of 75 or more, body mass index 35 or more, prior VTE or VTE in 1st degree relative. As for urological procedure, deep venous thrombosis rates of 0.2–7.8% and pulmonary embolism of 0.2–7% have been reported. It was shown that recommendations for VTE prophylaxis varies in different guidelines and their summary for most popular operations were described. Generally, most recommendations state that low-risk procedures need no prophylaxis or solely mechanical prophylaxis. Moderate-risk categories can either have mechanical or pharmacological prophylaxis. The high-risk category should have both mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis, and extended prophylaxis should be considered. Despite massive evidences about risk of VTE among different types of surgical patients, real clinical practice doesn’t show the strict adherence to VTE prophylaxis recommendations.