Outcomes with prostatic urethral lift in urinary retention patients
BAUS ePoster online library. Dhanasekaran A. 06/21/21; 319070; p3-2
Disclosure(s): Consultant with Teleflex
Mr. Ananda Kumar Dhanasekaran
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction:
The minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is approved for the treatment of LUTS arising from BPE. We have developed a protocol to perform PUL completely under local anaesthesia without the need for even sedation. In this study, we compared outcomes between patients with and without urinary retention at presentation.
Methods:
We assessed outcomes of patients who underwent PUL from March 2019-February 2020, including men in urinary retention who had previously failed TWOC while taking alpha-blockers. Outcomes were compared between subgroups of patients with and without urinary retention for IPSS and QoL before and 3 months after PUL. Pain tolerability VAS scores and quality of recovery visual analogue scale scores (QoR-VAS) were also compared.
Results:
Results for 39 men included, eight of whom had urinary retention at the presentation – three chronic and five acute. Local anaesthesia without sedation was used in 38 patients. General anaesthesia was used during the first procedure during training and one non-retention patient required sedation for anxiety. All urinary retention patients had successful TWOC 3-5 days after PUL. Mean QoL scores were similar for patients with and without retention before PUL and improved similarly after PUL (Table 1). After surgery, IPSS, QoR-VAS, and pain tolerability were all similar in the two subgroups (Table 1).
Conclusions:
PUL was associated with similar outcomes in patients with and without chronic or acute urinary retention at presentation. These cases should be considered for PUL, which our data shows can be successfully carried out under local anaesthetic without sedation.
The minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is approved for the treatment of LUTS arising from BPE. We have developed a protocol to perform PUL completely under local anaesthesia without the need for even sedation. In this study, we compared outcomes between patients with and without urinary retention at presentation.
Methods:
We assessed outcomes of patients who underwent PUL from March 2019-February 2020, including men in urinary retention who had previously failed TWOC while taking alpha-blockers. Outcomes were compared between subgroups of patients with and without urinary retention for IPSS and QoL before and 3 months after PUL. Pain tolerability VAS scores and quality of recovery visual analogue scale scores (QoR-VAS) were also compared.
Results:
Results for 39 men included, eight of whom had urinary retention at the presentation – three chronic and five acute. Local anaesthesia without sedation was used in 38 patients. General anaesthesia was used during the first procedure during training and one non-retention patient required sedation for anxiety. All urinary retention patients had successful TWOC 3-5 days after PUL. Mean QoL scores were similar for patients with and without retention before PUL and improved similarly after PUL (Table 1). After surgery, IPSS, QoR-VAS, and pain tolerability were all similar in the two subgroups (Table 1).
Conclusions:
PUL was associated with similar outcomes in patients with and without chronic or acute urinary retention at presentation. These cases should be considered for PUL, which our data shows can be successfully carried out under local anaesthetic without sedation.
Introduction:
The minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is approved for the treatment of LUTS arising from BPE. We have developed a protocol to perform PUL completely under local anaesthesia without the need for even sedation. In this study, we compared outcomes between patients with and without urinary retention at presentation.
Methods:
We assessed outcomes of patients who underwent PUL from March 2019-February 2020, including men in urinary retention who had previously failed TWOC while taking alpha-blockers. Outcomes were compared between subgroups of patients with and without urinary retention for IPSS and QoL before and 3 months after PUL. Pain tolerability VAS scores and quality of recovery visual analogue scale scores (QoR-VAS) were also compared.
Results:
Results for 39 men included, eight of whom had urinary retention at the presentation – three chronic and five acute. Local anaesthesia without sedation was used in 38 patients. General anaesthesia was used during the first procedure during training and one non-retention patient required sedation for anxiety. All urinary retention patients had successful TWOC 3-5 days after PUL. Mean QoL scores were similar for patients with and without retention before PUL and improved similarly after PUL (Table 1). After surgery, IPSS, QoR-VAS, and pain tolerability were all similar in the two subgroups (Table 1).
Conclusions:
PUL was associated with similar outcomes in patients with and without chronic or acute urinary retention at presentation. These cases should be considered for PUL, which our data shows can be successfully carried out under local anaesthetic without sedation.
The minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is approved for the treatment of LUTS arising from BPE. We have developed a protocol to perform PUL completely under local anaesthesia without the need for even sedation. In this study, we compared outcomes between patients with and without urinary retention at presentation.
Methods:
We assessed outcomes of patients who underwent PUL from March 2019-February 2020, including men in urinary retention who had previously failed TWOC while taking alpha-blockers. Outcomes were compared between subgroups of patients with and without urinary retention for IPSS and QoL before and 3 months after PUL. Pain tolerability VAS scores and quality of recovery visual analogue scale scores (QoR-VAS) were also compared.
Results:
Results for 39 men included, eight of whom had urinary retention at the presentation – three chronic and five acute. Local anaesthesia without sedation was used in 38 patients. General anaesthesia was used during the first procedure during training and one non-retention patient required sedation for anxiety. All urinary retention patients had successful TWOC 3-5 days after PUL. Mean QoL scores were similar for patients with and without retention before PUL and improved similarly after PUL (Table 1). After surgery, IPSS, QoR-VAS, and pain tolerability were all similar in the two subgroups (Table 1).
Conclusions:
PUL was associated with similar outcomes in patients with and without chronic or acute urinary retention at presentation. These cases should be considered for PUL, which our data shows can be successfully carried out under local anaesthetic without sedation.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}