Prostatic UroLume Wallstent for benign prostatic hyperplasia patients at poor operative risk: clinical, uroflowmetric and ultrasonographic patterns.
ABSTRACT The prostatic UroLume Wallstent was positioned in 30 poor operative risk patients with bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Preoperatively, 12 patients (40%) could still void spontaneously (group 1), while 18 (60%) had an indwelling catheter (group 2). Preoperative and postoperative assessment included scoring of subjective symptoms, physical examination, uroflowmetry with maximum flow nomogram, transrectal ultrasonography of the prostate, determination of residual urine volume and cystourethroscopy. All but 1 patient could void spontaneously after insertion of the stent. In group 1 preoperative and 1-year followup mean (plus or minus standard error) peak flow rates were 8.0 +/- 0.7 ml. per second and 15.8 +/- 1.8 ml. per second, respectively (p < 0.01), the mean residual urine volumes were 127 +/- 27 ml. and 38 +/- 11 ml. (p < 0.05), respectively, and the mean maximum flow nomograms (plus or minus standard deviation) were -2.6 +/- 0.1 and -1.4 +/- 0.4, respectively. In group 2 the 1-year followup mean peak flow rate, residual urine volume and maximum flow nomogram were 13.2 +/- 0.8 ml. per second (standard error), 32 +/- 14 ml. (standard error) and -1.5 +/- 0.1 (standard deviation), respectively. According to the maximum flow nomogram values all patients were nonobstructed postoperatively. At 1 year the stent was completely covered by prostatic epithelium in 90% of the patients, while in the remainder it was still partially visible at urethroscopy. Transrectal ultrasonography had an essential role in patient followup by accurately assessing the position of the stent. Placement of this prostatic stent is safe and effective for selected benign prostatic hyperplasia patients who cannot undergo surgical treatment due to poor operative risk.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a frequent disease in men and a major cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or open surgery remains the gold standard of treatment for symptomatic BPH. However, 10% to 15% of patients with BPH cannot undergo surgery due to grave concomitant diseases. For patients presenting with contraindications to surgery or anesthesia, several minimally invasive alternative treatment modalities are available. One such therapeutic alternative is prostatic stenting, which can serve as a temporary or permanent solution for bladder outlet obstruction caused by BPH. Although not a new concept, this is a relatively new treatment modality in the United States, primarily because of the strict regulatory forces governing the use of these devices. Prostatic urethral stents have been widely demonstrated to be safe and effective for the treatment of symptomatic BPH. In addition to being minimally invasive, prostatic stenting is generally rapid, easy to perform, immediately effective, and has a low cost compared with conventional surgical treatment. Prostatic stents are therefore well suited to treat the frail elderly patient who would not be able to withstand the stress of undergoing surgery. This report reviews the current use of prostatic urethral stents in the treatment of high-risk surgical patients with BPH.Current Urology Reports 09/2001; 2(4):277-84.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel intraurethral prostatic bridge catheter in preventing temporary prostatic obstruction following targeted high energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. A total of 54 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent high energy transurethral microwave therapy under topical urethral anesthesia followed by placement of a prostatic bridge catheter, which remained indwelling as long as 1 month (prostatic bridge catheter group). Patient evaluation included determination of peak urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) and quality of life score at baseline, immediately following transurethral microwave therapy and prostatic bridge catheter placement, and periodically thereafter for 1 month. Results were retrospectively compared with those of 51 patients who underwent transurethral microwave therapy followed by standard temporary urinary catheterization, typically for 24 hours (standard catheterization group). Immediately following transurethral microwave therapy and prostatic bridge catheter placement significant improvements (p <0.0005) were observed in mean peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score of 59.3, 33.5 and 23.6%, respectively, compared with baseline values. Further improvements were noted up to 1 month, at which time mean peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score had improved 79.0, 54.9 and 56.5%, respectively, versus baseline (p <0.0005). In a retrospective comparison at baseline and 14 days between the prostatic bridge catheter group and standard catheterization group mean baseline peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score were similar. However, at the 14-day followup evaluation in the prostatic bridge catheter group mean peak flow rate was 101.8% higher, and I-PSS and quality of life score were 47.9 and 51.1% lower, respectively, than the corresponding values in the standard catheterization group (p <0.0005). The prostatic bridge catheter was well tolerated and remained indwelling throughout the entire 1-month followup in 48 of 54 patients (88.9%). Early prostatic bridge catheter removal was required in 3 patients (5.6%) due to urinary retention and in 3 (5.6%) due to catheter migration. Prostatic bridge catheter placement provides an effective and well tolerated option for preventing prostatic obstruction in the acute period after transurethral microwave therapy. This approach avoids the inconvenience and infection risk of standard indwelling catheters or intermittent self-catheterization. Prostatic bridge catheter insertion and removal are rapid, facile, nontraumatic procedures. Prostatic bridge catheter may potentially be used in an array of minimally invasive procedures involving thermal treatment of the prostate gland.The Journal of Urology 02/1999; 161(1):144-51. · 3.70 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Management of lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostate hyperplasia in the high-risk surgical patient presents a unique challenge. Continuous urethral catheter drainage is associated with a significant decrease in the quality of life and a higher risk of urinary tract infections, bladder calculi, and hematuria. Urethral stents offer a theoretically attractive alternative to Foley catheter drainage. Newer designs allow selection of stent characteristics based on patient need. Urethral stents may be permanent or temporary. The history of urethral stent design and patient experience is reviewed in this article.Current Urology Reports 09/2003; 4(4):282-6.