研究目的：為了探討臺灣地區泌尿科醫師對前列腺肥大之治療趨勢，我們進行了這個研究調查，以協助建立屬於我們自己的規矩準繩及對病人提供適當的診斷與治療。材料與方法：從2000年11月至2001年4月，我們針對全台465位泌尿科醫師進行問卷調查。內容包含對前列腺肥大之診斷所使用的各種工具及各種不同程度之前列腺肥大之處理的情形；並且回顧五年前的選擇以做比較。上述問題是透過郵寄回函方式回收。結果：一共有240醫師回函，回收率達51.6%。對於前列腺肥大方面，2/3以上的醫師不依靠肌酸酐、膀胱鏡、靜脈腎盂攝影及餘尿之測量做為輔助診斷工具。89.1%的受訪者會使用PSA做為前列腺癌之偵測。86.7%的醫師相信IPSS之評分是可以信賴的。治療方面，對於前列腺目前之治療與五年前做比較，仍以alpha-阻斷劑之內科療法為主。對於較大體積之前列腺而言，有87.5%的醫師選擇經尿道括除術之術式，甚至對於巨大體積而言，使用此術式的醫師也由五年前的64%上升到目前的84%。Finasteride之使用率已經從10%下降到1.7%。結論：我們針對上述種疾病所做的治療趨勢之調查可以看出我們泌尿科醫師在處理態度上之異同。這份研究報告說明了臺灣的實際醫療情形，對於要建立屬於我們自己的規矩準繩是很有幫助的。

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current trend of Taiwanese urologists in managing benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This study can help establish our own consensus, recommend appropriate diagnostic tools, and offer ideal treatment options to related patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2000 to April 2001, a questionnaire concerning the tools used for establishing a diagnosis of BPH, treatment options in different hierarchies associated with various sizes of the prostate currently and 5 years ago was mailed to each of the 465 urologists in active practice in Taiwan. RESULTS: A total of 240 physicians (51.6%) responded to the questionnaire. For evaluation of severity of BPH, more than 2/3 of the surgeons did not depend on serum creatinine, cystoscopy, intravenous urography, or residual urine as adjuvant tools. Of these subjects, 89.1% would add serum prostatic-specific antigen to detect suspected malignancy, and 86.7% of them believed the International Prostate Symptoms Score was essentially valuable. Regarding current treatment and a comparison with treatment 5 years ago, surgeons still preferred using a-blocker for medical therapy. Transurethral resection of the prostate remained the most popular procedure for a medium-sized enlarged prostate with 87.5% of surgeons maintaining this choice, and increasing acceptance for huge prostates of from 64% to 84%. On the other hand, the use of finasteride dropped from 10% to 1.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The trends of treating BPH we report herein can provide useful insights into variations in clinical practice among Taiwanese urologists and may help in the development of more widely accepted guidelines by our urological community