Phamacological treatment of persistant lower urinary tract symptoms after a transurethral resection of the prostate is predictive of a new surgical treatment: 10 years follow-up study.

AIM: To evaluate possible risk factors of re intervention in patients with benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of patients with LUTS and BPE underwent TURP in our center in 2004 and 2005 and they were then followed up to September 2016. Patients were assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-month postoperatively and yearly thereafter with medical history, international prostate symptom score, prostate specific antigen, maximal urinary flow rate, post void residual urine. Reoperation was defined as the requirement of a new TURP to relieve bothersome LUTS. Cox regression was used to determine covariates associated with reoperation rate and the Kaplan-Meier curve assessed the time to reoperation. RESULTS: Overall, 92 patients were enrolled. Median follow up was 142 months. 13 patients underwent a second TURP during the follow-up period (reoperation rate was 14%); out of them 9/13 (69%) received medical treatment for persistent LUTS (p = .001). The need of LUTS/BPE pharmacological treatment after TURP is an independent risk factor for a second surgical procedure (odds ratio 9,3; p = .001). Out of the 13 patients treated with a re-TURP, 12 (92%) underwent surgery within 5 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: In our single center study, the need of LUTS/BPE pharmacological treatment was a predictive factor of a re-TURP. Considering that more than 90% of re-TURP were performed during the first 5 years of follow-up, it is assumable that a follow-up longer than 5 years is not needed in these patients.

Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation: rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation.

INTRODUCTION: Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUSbx) is the standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Different bowel preparations are used for patients undergoing TRUSbx. The aim of our study was to compare two different bowel preparations for TRUSbx. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From May 2012 and onwards, a selected group of men undergoing TRUS 12-core prostate biopsy were enrolled into a prospective database. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a rectal enema (Group A) the night before the procedure or polyethylene glycol 34.8 grams/4 liters of water the day before the procedure (Group B). A VAS scale to evaluate the patients' discomfort according to the two preparations was collected. The same antibiotic prophylaxis was performed in both groups. All complications were prospectively recorded and graded according to the Clavien Classification System (CCS). RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were consecutively enrolled. Mean age was 67.5 ±7.9 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.1 ±4.2 Kg/m(2), mean PSA value was 9.3 ±12.6 ng/ml and the mean prostatic volume was 60.6 ±29 ml. 97 patients were enrolled in Group A and 101 in Group B. Overall post-biopsy morbidity rate was 60%. No significant differences for low-grade and high-grade complications was observed between the two groups. Patients receiving the rectal enema presented with a significantly lower VAS score (3.1 ±1.1 vs. 5.9 ±1.7; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed that a rectal enema should be considered as the standard bowel preparation in patients undergoing a TRUS biopsy; it is as effective as PEG and associated with less discomfort.

Photoselective prostatic vaporization for bladder outlet obstruction: 12-month evaluation of storage and voiding symptoms.

PURPOSE: We evaluated voiding and storage symptom evolution in patients treated with prostate photoselective vaporization by a KTP laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 150 consecutive patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia and a diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction. Patients underwent prostate photoselective vaporization with the 80 W KTP laser. Baseline parameters included prostate volume, International Prostate Symptom Score with voiding and storage symptom subscores, uroflowmetry, pressure flow study and serum prostate specific antigen. Patients were followed 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD patient age was 69.6 +/- 10 years. Mean prostate volume was 52 +/- 18 ml. Mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.3 +/- 4, mean maximum urine flow was 9 +/- 2.9 ml per second and mean Schäfer obstruction class was 3.6 +/- 1. An average of 190 +/- 44 kJ were delivered in a mean of 68 +/- 24 minutes with an average of 3.6 kJ/ml prostate. The mean number of fibers was 1.2 +/- 0.4. Mean catheterization time was 20 +/- 8 hours. Retrograde ejaculation was reported in 67% of patients. Prostate specific antigen was significantly decreased at 12 months (2.6 +/- 2.3 vs 0.9 +/- 0.7 ng/ml, p = 0.001). Storage symptoms decreased by 54.5%, 63.6%, 72.7% and 81.8% at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively (p <0.001). Voiding symptoms decreased 63.6%, 72.7%, 81.8% and 90.9% at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As shown by a prostate specific antigen significant decrease, proper prostate debulking may be achieved by prostate photoselective vaporization. Significant continuous improvement in storage and voiding symptoms was observed at up to 12-month followup.

Local anesthesia reduces pain associated with transrectal prostatic biopsy. A prospective randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: To test the hypothesis that periprostatic block could completely relief prostatic biopsy-associated pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to no analgesia (group A), endorectal enema of 1% lidocaine gel (group B) or transrectal periprostatic block (group C). All patients underwent 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. The study design included interim analysis of pain score after the first 60 patients were enrolled. Kruskal-Wallis test for unpaired data was used for statistical analysis. Data are presented as mean, median (range). RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled between May 2003 and December 2003 and all patients were evaluable. Mean and median age was 68.5 and 69 (range 53-82) years, respectively. Mean and median PSA was 86.8 and 9 ng/ml (range 0.58-4.111), respectively. No major side effects were observed. Patients in group A scored at VAS a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.3 (range 3-10). Patients in group B scored a median 4, mean 5.5 +/- 2.7 (range 3-10) (p = 0.237). Patients receiving periprostatic injections of carbocaine (group C) scored a median 0, mean 0.5 +/- 0.8 (range 0-2). The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostatic biopsy without anesthesia or with intrarectal anesthetic jelly (p = 0.00001). In the periprostatic block group 65% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0) while all patients in the other groups experience some degree of pain. CONCLUSION: The use of bilateral periprostatic block is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostatic biopsy procedure.