A rare case of a necrotized urethral prolapse in a postmenopausal woman with acute urinary retention.

CASE: Urethral prolapse (UP) is a rare condition with unknown etiology. We reported on an 86-year-old woman with a normal BMI and cystocele, presented with acute urinary retention and perineal pain. A residual urine of 950 mL was measured and released by an indwelling catheter. The physical examination revealed 2 × 3 cm severely sore and purple polyp around the urethral meatus with signs of necrosis. A diagnosis of a strangulated urethral prolapse was stated. OUTCOME: The patient was admitted to the Department of Urology, and treated with surgical excision using the four-quadrant excisional technique. The histopathological examination revealed a non-keratinized, inflammatory squamous epithelium. At a follow-up visit, the patient remained asymptomatic and a complete anatomical resolution was achieved. CONCLUSION: UP is an uncommon, sometimes misdiagnosed condition. The management is controversial and to date no consensus exists. This clinical picture is sufficient for diagnosis and surgical excision of the prolapsed urethral mucosa is reasonable if there are signs of strangulation.

Patient related factors affecting in-hospital costs of a TURP procedure.

Introduction: Treatment costs of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) are a substantial economic burden that will continue to increase in the future as a result of the ageing male population and increasing health awareness. The true costs for surgical interventions against BPE have been difficult to quantify as treatment costs strongly depend on the performance setting and may also vary among different healthcare systems, regions and institutions. The purpose of this study was to disclose the in-hospital costs and main expense items associated with a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).Methods: A cohort of men subjected to TURP due to BPE was analysed during a 3-year period (2017-2019). All in-hospital expenses were registered using an electronic spreadsheet. Patient background and perioperative variables were registered using retrospective chart reviews.Results: A total of 122 men were available for final analysis. Of these, 70 men were operated on due to bothersome LUTS and 52 men due to urinary retention. The mean and median (inter quartile range) cost per patient was €4025 and €3702 (2961 - 4390), respectively. The main drivers of total cost were length of stay, the surgical procedure and anaesthesia related costs. Factors associated with increasing total cost per patient were increasing age, prostate volume, presence of urinary retention, occurrence of complications, increasing catheter time and length of stay.Conclusion: The main factor that influences total cost for an elective TURP procedure is the occurrence of postoperative complications. Our findings firmly underscore the indispensability to employ every possible means to avoid and prevent complications of any kind.

Transurethral resection of the prostate: fate of the non-responders.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the standard method of surgical management of benign prostatic enlargement for decades. Some patients experience significant voiding dysfunction and discomfort postoperatively, without any apparent clinical complications from the procedure. Furthermore, a significant proportion of men still require postoperative catheterisation. This study analysed patients defined as non-responders after TURP with the principal aim to reveal their fate. METHODS: A prospectively recruited cohort of 355 men, who underwent TURP during 2010-2012, was investigated. Non-responders were identified as still requiring catheterisation postoperatively and/or exhibiting all of the following voiding outcomes based on the de Wildt criteria: IPSS > 7, bother score > 2, Qmax < 15 mL/s and PVR > 100 mL. The non-responders were followed for a maximum period of three years using retrospective chart reviews. RESULTS: Thirty-five men were defined as non-responders. Of these, 26 men were operated on due to urinary retention and nine men due to bothersome symptoms. The non-responders were followed for a mean time of 72 months. Seven men underwent a redo-TURP and two men a bladder neck incision. Eleven of the 35 men were finally judged as having satisfactory voiding parameters. Sixteen men used CISC. Eleven men reduced the frequency of CISC to a minimum. Seven men had to use an indwelling catheter indefinitely. CONCLUSION: Men with preoperative urinary retention constituted the vast majority of non-responders. The use of postoperative urodynamic studies was remarkably low. Almost one in three non-responders finally had a satisfactory outcome with or without re-intervention.

The morbidity associated with a TURP procedure in routine clinical practice, as graded by the modified Clavien-Dindo system.

Background: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is considered the reference surgical method of treating benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) causing obstruction. The procedure still carries a significant risk of perioperative morbidity according to previous reports. The aim of the present study was to disclose complications after TURP undertaken in routine clinical practice at a non-academic center.Methods: All patients with BPE submitted to TURP from January 2010 to December 2012 were evaluated for complications occurring during hospital stay, after discharge up to the end of the third post-operative month and finally for any late endourological re-interventions undertaken up to five years after TURP. All complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo system.Results: In total, 354 men underwent a TURP during the study period. In total, 47% had pre-operative urinary retention. Significant co-morbidity was seen in 17% of men (ASA III-IV). Spinal anaesthesia was applied to 312 men (88%). During hospital stay, major complications, graded as Clavien-Dindo ≥ III, was seen in only eight men (2.3%). Minor complications occurred in 91 men (26%). Between hospital discharge and follow-up visit major complications were noted in 12 men (3.4%). Minor complications occurred in 79 men (22%). The only factor that was associated with an increased risk of a major complication was general anaesthesia. Late complications, requiring an endourological re-intervention, occurred in 30 men (9.7%).Conclusion: TUR-P in routine clinical practice was associated with a low incidence of severe complications. TUR syndrome was very rare. Within five years a small proportion of men require the transurethral intervention to be redone.

Defining and discriminating responders from non-responders following transurethral resection of the prostate.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the reference standard surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic enlargement. The aim of this study was to investigate the response rate following TURP in two distinctly different patient categories; men with bothersome LUTS and men in urinary retention (UR) requiring catheterisation. METHODS: In total, 355 men underwent TURP due to LUTS or UR. Responders in the LUTS group were defined as having an International Prostate Symptom Score ≤7 or >50% loss compared to baseline, a Qmax ≥ 15 mL/s or >50% gain compared to baseline, a post-void residual ≤100 mL or a bother score ≤2. Patients fulfilling at least one out of the four criteria were defined as responders. In the UR group, responders were defined as being catheter-free at follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 337 men remained for final analysis. The proportion operated on due to UR was 46%. In men with LUTS, the response rate was 95%. One in four were classified as excellent responders, fulfilling all four outcome criteria. Men with UR had a successful removal of the catheter after TURP prior to discharge in 77% of the cases and an additional 6% within 3 months, yielding a total response rate of 83%. CONCLUSION: TURP is a successful procedure in men with bothersome LUTS and in men with UR. Considering the difference regarding voiding outcomes in men operated on due to LUTS or UR, these groups should be analysed separately in future studies comparing TURP against newer treatment modalities.