Investigative and clinical urology · 2017
Thermo-expandable prostatic stents for bladder outlet obstruction in the frail and elderly population: An underutilized procedure?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sethi Kapil, Bozin Michael, Jabane Tebogo, McMullin Richard, Cook David, Forsyth Rob, Dodds Lachlan, Putra Lydia Johns
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report our outcomes with the use of a thermo-expandable metallic intraprostatic stent (Memokath) for patients with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) secondary to prostatic obstruction, and to assess it is a feasible option for many frail and elderly men unsuitable for surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent insertion of a Memokath stent for BOO over 17 years (January 1999 to December 2015) at one regional center over a long follow-up period (median, 7 years). Patients were selected if they had obstructive urinary symptoms or urinary retention with an indwelling catheter in situ, and were ineligible for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) under general or spinal anesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were the improvement in urinary symptoms and voiding parameters, as well as the ability to void spontaneously if catheterized, along with complications.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-four patients who presented with BOO or urinary retention had a Memokath stent inserted. Ninety patients (62.5%) had a successful stent insertion with a significant difference between the median preoperative (550 mL) and postoperative residual volume (80 mL, p<0.0001). Nearly two-thirds of men (64%) returned to unassisted voiding with no increased risk of complications over time. Fifty-four patients (37.5%) experienced stent failure. Main complications requiring stent removal or repositioning were migration, occlusion, refractory urinary retention and irritative voiding symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: In elderly and frail men with BOO deemed unsuitable to undergo TURP, prostatic stent is a safe and practical alternative to long-term catheterization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent insertion of a Memokath stent for BOO over 17 years (January 1999 to December 2015) at one regional center over a long follow-up period (median, 7 years). Patients were selected if they had obstructive urinary symptoms or urinary retention with an indwelling catheter in situ, and were ineligible for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) under general or spinal anesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were the improvement in urinary symptoms and voiding parameters, as well as the ability to void spontaneously if catheterized, along with complications.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-four patients who presented with BOO or urinary retention had a Memokath stent inserted. Ninety patients (62.5%) had a successful stent insertion with a significant difference between the median preoperative (550 mL) and postoperative residual volume (80 mL, p<0.0001). Nearly two-thirds of men (64%) returned to unassisted voiding with no increased risk of complications over time. Fifty-four patients (37.5%) experienced stent failure. Main complications requiring stent removal or repositioning were migration, occlusion, refractory urinary retention and irritative voiding symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: In elderly and frail men with BOO deemed unsuitable to undergo TURP, prostatic stent is a safe and practical alternative to long-term catheterization.