-
Anesthesiology Nov 2019In this narrative review article, the authors discuss the anatomy, nomenclature, history, approaches (posterior vs. lateral vs. subcostal), techniques, pharmacology,... (Review)
Review
In this narrative review article, the authors discuss the anatomy, nomenclature, history, approaches (posterior vs. lateral vs. subcostal), techniques, pharmacology, indications, and complications of transversus abdominis plane blocks, as well as possible alternative truncal blocks.Despite the scarcity of evidence and contradictory findings, certain clinical suggestions can nonetheless be made. Overall transversus abdominis plane blocks appear most beneficial in the setting of open appendectomy (posterior or lateral approach). Lateral transversus abdominis plane blocks are not suggested for laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, or open prostatectomy. However, transversus abdominis plane blocks could serve as an analgesic option for Cesarean delivery (posterior or lateral approach) and open colorectal section (subcostal or lateral approach) if there exist contraindications to intrathecal morphine and thoracic epidural analgesia, respectively.Future investigation is required to compare posterior and subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks in clinical settings. Furthermore, posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks should be investigated for surgical interventions in which their lateral counterparts have proven not to be beneficial (e.g., laparoscopic hysterectomy/appendectomy, open prostatectomy). More importantly, because posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks can purportedly provide sympathetic blockade and visceral analgesia, they should be compared with thoracic epidural analgesia for open colorectal surgery. Finally, transversus abdominis plane blocks should be compared with newer truncal blocks (e.g., erector spinae plane and quadratus lumborum blocks) with well-designed and adequately powered trials.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Cesarean Section; Colorectal Surgery; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 31283738
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002842 -
JSLS : Journal of the Society of... 2022Laparoscopic instruments and techniques are constantly improving, as the ability to perform minimally invasive surgery is crucial in modern medicine. The progression... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Laparoscopic instruments and techniques are constantly improving, as the ability to perform minimally invasive surgery is crucial in modern medicine. The progression from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery over the years eventually led to the use of robotic devices to either assist or completely replace patient-side surgery with a separate console. Though robotic surgery has been praised for its surgical outcomes, certain situations limit its use, such as cost-effectiveness or physical space constraints. The objectives of this review were to perform a search and discuss the trends in the literature.
METHODS
A literature search using keywords ((laparoscopic) OR (laparoscopy) OR (minimally invasive)) AND ((instrument) OR (instrumentation) OR (tool) OR (device) OR (apparatus)) AND ((advancement) OR (upgrade)) AND ((hysterectomy) OR (prostatectomy) OR (transoral) OR (cholecystectomy)) AND (robot) in PubMed, looking for trends in advancements or appeals for change.
RESULTS
This search provides a framework for these trends to facilitate discussion of ways in which laparoscopic surgery can be improved using the benefits of robotic surgical systems. This allows others to approach the successes of the current robotic systems for laparoscopic surgery with the intention of deriving advancements toward traditional laparoscopic surgery.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Prostatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35655469
DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2022.00002 -
Lancet (London, England) Jan 2022Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.
BACKGROUND
Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population.
METHODS
These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death).
INTERPRETATION
Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population.
FUNDING
Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.
Topics: Abiraterone Acetate; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzamides; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Male; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prednisolone; Progression-Free Survival; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34953525
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02437-5 -
JAMA Oncology Nov 2021The presence of pelvic nodal metastases at radical prostatectomy is associated with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy.
Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for Pelvic Nodal Metastasis Detection Prior to Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Multicenter Prospective Phase 3 Imaging Trial.
IMPORTANCE
The presence of pelvic nodal metastases at radical prostatectomy is associated with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the accuracy of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) 68Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging for the detection of pelvic nodal metastases compared with histopathology at time of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This investigator-initiated prospective multicenter single-arm open-label phase 3 imaging trial of diagnostic efficacy enrolled 764 patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer considered for prostatectomy at University of California, San Francisco and University of California, Los Angeles from December 2015 to December 2019. Data analysis took place from October 2018 to July 2021.
INTERVENTIONS
Imaging scan with 3 to 7 mCi of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was the sensitivity and specificity for the detection pelvic lymph nodes compared with histopathology on a per-patient basis using nodal region correlation. Each scan was read centrally by 3 blinded independent central readers, and a majority rule was used for analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 764 men (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [63-73] years) underwent 1 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging scan for primary staging, and 277 of 764 (36%) subsequently underwent prostatectomy with lymph node dissection (efficacy analysis cohort). Based on pathology reports, 75 of 277 patients (27%) had pelvic nodal metastasis. Results of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET were positive in 40 of 277 (14%), 2 of 277 (1%), and 7 of 277 (3%) of patients for pelvic nodal, extrapelvic nodal, and bone metastatic disease. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for pelvic nodal metastases were 0.40 (95% CI, 0.34-0.46), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70-0.80), and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85), respectively. Of the 764 patients, 487 (64%) did not undergo prostatectomy, of which 108 were lost to follow-up. Patients with follow-up instead underwent radiotherapy (262 of 379 [69%]), systemic therapy (82 of 379 [22%]), surveillance (16 of 379 [4%]), or other treatments (19 of 379 [5%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This phase 3 diagnostic efficacy trial found that in men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection, the sensitivity and specificity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET were 0.40 and 0.95, respectively. This academic collaboration is the largest known to date and formed the foundation of a New Drug Application for 68Ga-PSMA-11.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03368547, NCT02611882, and NCT02919111.
Topics: Aged; Gallium Isotopes; Gallium Radioisotopes; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Middle Aged; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prospective Studies; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 34529005
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3771 -
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Aug 2021The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is known to influence postoperative recovery, but patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy typically experience moderate dynamic pain in the immediate postoperative day. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery may be associated with decreased pain levels as opposed to open surgery. We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) with PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language, from January 2015 until March 2020, assessing postoperative pain, using analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions, were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. Of the 1797 studies identified, 35 RCTs and 3 meta-analyses met our inclusion criteria. NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors proved to lower postoperative pain scores. Continuous intravenous lidocaine reduced postoperative pain scores during open surgery. Local wound infiltration showed positive results in open surgery. Bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block was performed at the end of surgery and lowered pain scores in robot-assisted procedures, but results were conflicting for open procedures. Basic analgesia for prostatic surgery should include paracetamol and NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors. TAP block should be recommended as the first-choice regional analgesic technique for laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy. Intravenous lidocaine should be considered for open surgeries.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 34197976
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100922 -
European Urology Nov 2021Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localised prostate cancer. Evidence on whether different surgical techniques can affect mortality rates is...
BACKGROUND
Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localised prostate cancer. Evidence on whether different surgical techniques can affect mortality rates is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate functional and oncological outcomes 8 yr after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
We enrolled 4003 patients in a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial comparing RALP and RRP in 14 Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011. Data for functional outcomes were assessed via validated patient questionnaires administered preoperatively and at 12 and 24 mo and 8 yr after surgery.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The primary endpoint was urinary incontinence. Functional outcomes at 8 yr were analysed using the modified Poisson regression approach.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
Urinary incontinence was not significantly different at 8 yr after surgery between RALP and RRP (27% vs 29%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.23). Erectile dysfunction was significantly lower in the RALP group (66% vs 70%; aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99). Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was significantly lower in the RALP group at 8 yr after surgery (40/2699 vs 25/885; aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.93). Differences in oncological outcomes were mainly seen in the group with high D'Amico risk, with a lower risk of positive surgical margins (21% vs 34%), biochemical recurrence (51% vs 69%), and PCSM (14/220 vs 11/77) for RALP versus RRP. The main limitation is the nonrandomised design.
CONCLUSIONS
In this prospective multicentre controlled trial, PCSM at 8 yr after surgery was lower for RALP in comparison to RRP. A causal relationship between surgical technique and mortality cannot be inferred, but the result confirms that RALP is oncologically safe. Taken together with better short-term results reported elsewhere, our findings confirm that implementation of RALP may continue.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our study comparing two surgical techniques for removal of the prostate for localised prostate cancer shows that a robot-assisted minimally invasive technique is safe in the long term. Together with previous results showing some better short-term effects with this approach, our findings support continued use of robot-assisted surgery.
Topics: Aged; Erectile Dysfunction; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 34538508
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.025 -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Aug 2019Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common diseases affecting the aging man, with almost 80% of men... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common diseases affecting the aging man, with almost 80% of men greater than 70 affected. Historically, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been considered the historical gold standard in the treatment of LUTS due to BPH for many years, contemporary literature indicates that holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has replaced TURP and open simple prostatectomy as the size independent surgical gold standard for BPH treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this review, we discuss the current techniques utilized, outcomes and safety, as well as the long term durability of results. Adverse events associated with the HoLEP procedure, both enucleation and morcellation, are covered as well.
RESULTS
HoLEP has a robust body of literature supporting the technique, which demonstrates its ability to surpass other surgical BPH procedures, including TURP and open simple prostatectomy. Additionally, there is long term durability of both subjective and objective outcomes greater than 10 years associated with this procedure. One randomized trial showed specific postoperative outcome measures that were superior to TURP at 7 years of follow up, including Qmax (4.36 mL/s improvement), erectile function (2.39 points improvement on the IIEF erectile function section), and weight of prostate removed (15.7 grams greater), while other studies have shown greater reduction in postoperative PSA, lower detrusor pressure at Qmax, and more.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, HoLEP has proven to be an extremely durable and effective treatment for patients suffering from LUTS due to BPH. Both the Europeans and AUA guidelines on the surgical treatment of BPH recommend HoLEP as a size-independent treatment option for those men with moderate to severe symptoms. HoLEP is an excellent option for many patients who may not be good candidates for other procedures based on prostate size, age, or bleeding risk.
Topics: Holmium; Humans; Laser Therapy; Lasers, Solid-State; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Prostatism; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31481144
DOI: No ID Found -
The Lancet. Oncology Sep 2019National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines consider F-fluciclovine PET-CT for prostate cancer biochemical recurrence localisation after radical prostatectomy,... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
F-fluciclovine PET-CT and Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial.
BACKGROUND
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines consider F-fluciclovine PET-CT for prostate cancer biochemical recurrence localisation after radical prostatectomy, whereas European Association of Urology guidelines recommend prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT. To the best of our knowledge, no prospective head-to-head comparison between these tests has been done so far. The aim of this study was to compare prospectively paired F-fluciclovine and PSMA PET-CT scans for localising biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy in patients with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations (<2·0 ng/mL).
METHODS
This was a prospective, single-centre, open-label, single-arm comparative study done at University of California Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA, USA). Patients older than 18 years of age with prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and PSA levels ranging from 0·2 to 2·0 ng/mL without any prior salvage therapy and with a Karnofsky performance status of at least 50 were eligible. Patients underwent F-fluciclovine (reference test) and PSMA (index test) PET-CT scans within 15 days. Detection rate of biochemical recurrence at the patient level and by anatomical region was the primary endpoint. A statistical power analysis demonstrated that a sample size of 50 patients was needed to show a 22% difference in detection rates in favour of PSMA (test for superiority). Each PET scan was interpreted by three independent masked readers and a consensus majority interpretation was generated (two vs one) to determine positive findings. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02940262, and is complete.
FINDINGS
Between Feb 26, 2018, and Sept 20, 2018, 143 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 50 patients were enrolled into the study. Median follow-up was 8 months (IQR 7-9). The primary endpoint was met; detection rates were significantly lower with F-fluciclovine PET-CT (13 [26%; 95% CI 15-40] of 50) than with PSMA PET-CT (28 [56%; 41-70] of 50), with an odds ratio (OR) of 4·8 (95% CI 1·6-19·2; p=0·0026) at the patient level; in the subanalysis of the pelvic nodes region (four [8%; 2-19] with F-fluciclovine vs 15 [30%; 18-45] with PSMA PET-CT; OR 12·0 [1·8-513·0], p=0·0034); and in the subanalysis of any extrapelvic lesions (none [0%; 0-6] vs eight [16%; 7-29]; OR non-estimable [95% CI non-estimable], p=0·0078).
INTERPRETATION
With higher detection rates, PSMA should be the PET tracer of choice when PET-CT imaging is considered for subsequent treatment management decisions in patients with prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and low PSA concentrations (≤2·0 ng/mL). Further research is needed to investigate whether higher detection rates translate into improved oncological outcomes.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Aged; Carboxylic Acids; Contrast Media; Cyclobutanes; Edetic Acid; Gallium Isotopes; Gallium Radioisotopes; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Oligopeptides; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 31375469
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30415-2 -
Military Medical Research Apr 2022Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an...
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.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Male; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Urethral Stricture
PubMed: 35361280
DOI: 10.1186/s40779-022-00371-6 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger Apr 2023The treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia includes a variety of options ranging from medication to open prostatectomy. Several newer technologies have been... (Review)
Review
The treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia includes a variety of options ranging from medication to open prostatectomy. Several newer technologies have been developed. Transurethral resection of the prostate remains the gold standard among surgical procedures for prostates less than 80 cc whereas enucleation and simple open prostatectomy are most documented for larger prostates. This review has focus on the status of treatment available in Denmark at the moment. Thorough evaluation of the patients before treatment and shared decision-making with regard to treatment options is essential.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostate; Laser Therapy
PubMed: 37057701
DOI: No ID Found