Dataset Information

Prostatic resection cavity large stone post transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). A rare case scenario.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compromise the mainstay surgical treatment of LUTS due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The storage symptoms post TURP may be attributed to urinary tract infection (UTI), preoperative detrusor over-activities, and residual prostatic adenoma causing voiding symptoms.

Presentation of case

A 56 year old male presented storage LUTS (mainly frequency and urgency) since two years. Two years earlier, he underwent uncomplicated monopolar TURP. The patient has occasional straining and intermittent urine. No history of hematuria. No notable medical history was present. Digital rectal examination showed small prostate. Anal tone and Bulbocavernosal reflex were intact. CT showed a large vesical stone extending into the prostatic fossa measuring 51.5 mm × 67.0 mm. The patient was managed by suprapubic cystolitholapaxy.

Discussion

Post TURP LUTS necessitates evaluation with a thorough history and physical, including International Prostate Symptom Score, and urine culture to rule out infection. In a rare case report, delayed occurrence of storage and obstructive voiding symptoms after TURP can be caused by dystrophic calcification of the prostatic resection cavity. The stone could have been due to a metal or plastic piece of the resectoscope embedded in the prostatic cavity, but, this postulation was deferred based on the non-attached stone to the mucosa as confirmed by cystoscope. In such case, based on the large stone burden, more cost would be a potential burden, and longer operative time, the open cystolitholapaxy is the modality of choice.

Conclusion

Prostatic cavity stone is a rare pathology. Incidental stone occupying the prostatic fossa post TURP is a remote possibility but it should by highlighted to raise urologist awareness for its possibility.

SUBMITTER: Taha DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970351 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of patient reported and functional outcomes.DesignRandomised, open label, non-inferiority trial.SettingUrology and radiology departments of a Swiss tertiary care centre.Participants103 patients aged ≥40 years with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomised between 11 February 2014 and 24 May 2017; 48 and 51 patients reached the primary endpoint 12 weeks after PAE and TURP, respectively.InterventionsPAE performed with 250-400 μm microspheres under local anaesthesia versus monopolar TURP performed under spinal or general anaesthesia.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was change in international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 weeks after surgery; a difference of less than 3 points between treatments was defined as non-inferiority for PAE and tested with a one sided t test. Secondary outcomes included further questionnaires, functional measures, magnetic resonance imaging findings, and adverse events; changes from baseline to 12 weeks were compared between treatments with two sided tests for superiority.ResultsMean reduction in IPSS from baseline to 12 weeks was -9.23 points after PAE and -10.77 points after TURP. Although the difference was less than 3 points (1.54 points in favour of TURP (95% confidence interval -1.45 to 4.52)), non-inferiority of PAE could not be shown (P=0.17). None of the patient reported secondary outcomes differed significantly between treatments when tested for superiority; IPSS also did not differ significantly (P=0.31). At 12 weeks, PAE was less effective than TURP regarding changes in maximum rate of urinary flow (5.19 v 15.34 mL/s; difference 10.15 (95% confidence interval -14.67 to -5.63); P<0.001), postvoid residual urine (-86.36 v -199.98 mL; 113.62 (39.25 to 187.98); P=0.003), prostate volume (-12.17 v -30.27 mL; 18.11 (10.11 to 26.10); P<0.001), and desobstructive effectiveness according to pressure flow studies (56% v 93% shift towards less obstructive category; P=0.003). Fewer adverse events occurred after PAE than after TURP (36 v 70 events; P=0.003).ConclusionsThe improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia seen 12 weeks after PAE is close to that after TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP but has disadvantages regarding functional outcomes, which should be considered when selecting patients. Further comparative study findings, including longer follow-up, should be evaluated before PAE can be considered as a routine treatment.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02054013.

Project description:ObjectiveAccording to the EAU Guidelines, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has so far still been considered as the gold standard for surgical treatment for patients with obstructing clinical benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). However, its relatively high rate of complications and postoperative recurrence necessitates further modification and innovation on the surgery technique. We reported the patient outcomes with our technique.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 52 patients with obstructing clinical BPH who underwent bipolar transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate (B-TUERP) between March 2015 and September 2015. Pre- and perioperative parameters were obtained from medical charts. Postoperative follow-ups were administrated at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 month(s) after surgery, respectively.ResultsAll the operations were performed successfully with a mean operative time of 43.1 min and an average tissue removal rate of 74.7%. Qmax was significantly improved immediately after surgery, followed by a continuous improvement throughout the follow-ups. Following a steep decrease in mean prostate specific antigen (PSA) and post void residual (PVR) observed within the first half year after surgery, the serum PSA was then maintained at a constant level of 0.61 ng/mL. Temporary urinary retention was found in four cases (7.7%). Stress urinary incontinence occurred in five patients (9.6%), with the condition resolved in 1-2 weeks without extra treatment. Urethral strictures and bladder neck contractures, as the most commonly observed long-term complications, developed in four patients (7.7%). No recurrence was found during 2 years of follow-ups. An improvement in International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores was witnessed in 17 patients preoperatively with normal sexual function during the first 6 months after surgery, and sustained throughout the 24-month period.ConclusionsEnucleation reflects an improvement on surgical technique in many ways with a need for surgical equipment that can be broadly accessible in clinical practice. Currently, bipolar resection is a commonly employed procedure in clinical settings, and its similarity shared with bipolar enucleation technique warrants a quick learning of B-TUERP by urologists. Based on these findings, we believe that the substitution of TURP by TUERP as the gold standard for prostate endoscopic procedure can be expected in the future.

Project description:BackgroundTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was considered the golden standard to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for decades. However, TURP was associated with low efficiency to alleviate the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and a significantly higher risk of bladder neck contracture (BNC) for patients with small-volume BPH. Our study aims to compare the therapeutic effect of a transurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) with TURP for patients with small-volume BPH (<30 mL).MethodsIn this study, 101 small-volume BPH patients were randomly divided into two groups (TUSP and TURP group). The patient's baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. The follow-up was done at six months, one year and two years after surgical treatment.ResultsNo significant differences were observed between the two groups for the baseline characteristics, including age, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, concurrent disease, post-void residual (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), international prostate symptoms score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL) score. The operative time and hemoglobin decrease were significantly lower in the TUSP group compared to the TURP group. However, no significant differences were observed between both groups for catheterization time, postoperative hospital stay, and incidence of transurethral resection syndrome (TURS). However, of the late complications, the incidence of BNC in the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group. No significant differences were found between both groups for other complications, including postoperative bleeding, micturition urgency, micturition frequency, micturition pain, urinary tract infection, recatheterization, transient incontinence, and continuous incontinence. Follow-up results showed that the IPSS of the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group, while the Qmax of the TUSP group was significantly higher than the TURP group.ConclusionsThis study shows that TUSP may be an efficient and safe treatment for small-volume BPH (<30 mL) with a lower incidence of postoperative BNC and better longtime clinical outcomes than TURP. It suggested that TUSP could be an ideal treatment choice for small-volume BPH.

Project description:Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline "2018 Standard Edition". However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons' surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy; the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons' skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.