ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate the success rate of trial without catheter (TWOC) for postoperative urinary retention (POUR) after non-urological surgery and to determine predictors of successful TWOC. METHODS: A total of 104 patients who underwent non-urological surgery and were referred to the department of urology for POUR were included in this retrospective study. All eligible patients underwent indwelling catheterization as an initial treatment and then TWOC was performed 3 to 7 days later. POUR was defined as micturition difficulty with greater than 400 mL of postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume measured by catheterization after non-urological surgery. Successful TWOC was defined as voiding with less than 100 mL of PVR urine volume. Predictive factors were identified by multivariate regression analysis. All definitions corresponded to recommendations of the International Continence Society. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 65.2 (range, 23 to 92) years. There were 45 male and 59 female patients. Intraoperative indwelling catheterization was performed in 69 (66.3%) patients. Mean duration of indwelling catheterization for POUR was 5.0 (range, 3.0 to 7.0) days and 83 (79.8%) patients received medication with an alpha-blocker. A successful TWOC was observed in 70 (67.4%) patients. The mean age of the patients with failure of TWOC was significantly higher than that of the patients with successful TWOC. The percentages of female patients, spinal surgery, and prone position during surgery in patients with unsuccessful TWOC were higher than in those with successful TWOC. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, age and location of surgery (spine vs. non-spine) were the independent predictors of successful TWOC for POUR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that older age and spinal surgery may be important risk factors for failure of TWOC for POUR after non-urological surgery. Thus, adequate prevention measures may be necessary for POUR after non-urological surgery, especially in patients with these risk factors.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Catheterization , Catheters , Catheters, Indwelling , Logistic Models , Postoperative Care , Prone Position , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Urinary Retention , Urination , UrologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy for diagnosing cancer can be painful. The efficacy and safety of combination perianal-intrarectal lidocaine-prilocaine (PILP) cream and periprostatic nerve block were compared with nerve block alone during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2007 to August 2009, 74 men undergoing a transrectal prostate biopsy were randomized into two groups. In group 1, 36 patients received a combination of PILP cream and a periprostatic nerve block; and in group 2, 38 patients received lubricant jelly and a periprostatic nerve block. Thirty minutes later, the TRUS-Bx was performed. Pain was evaluated by a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) after the biopsy. RESULTS: Patients in group 1 showed a significantly lower VAS score than patients in group 2 (mean score 2.22+/-0.89 vs. 3.02+/-1.15, p<0.001). In addition, there was a difference in the number of patients that had a pain score of three or more, 44% in group 1, and 65% in group 2. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (p=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of PILP cream and periprostatic nerve block reduced pain compared to the periprostatic nerve block alone. This safe, simple technique can be considered prior to TRUS-Bx to reduce patient discomfort.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Analgesia , Biopsy , Nerve Block , Prostate , UltrasonographyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy for diagnosing cancer can be painful. The efficacy and safety of combination perianal-intrarectal lidocaine-prilocaine (PILP) cream and periprostatic nerve block were compared with nerve block alone during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2007 to August 2009, 74 men undergoing a transrectal prostate biopsy were randomized into two groups. In group 1, 36 patients received a combination of PILP cream and a periprostatic nerve block; and in group 2, 38 patients received lubricant jelly and a periprostatic nerve block. Thirty minutes later, the TRUS-Bx was performed. Pain was evaluated by a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) after the biopsy. RESULTS: Patients in group 1 showed a significantly lower VAS score than patients in group 2 (mean score 2.22+/-0.89 vs. 3.02+/-1.15, p<0.001). In addition, there was a difference in the number of patients that had a pain score of three or more, 44% in group 1, and 65% in group 2. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (p=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of PILP cream and periprostatic nerve block reduced pain compared to the periprostatic nerve block alone. This safe, simple technique can be considered prior to TRUS-Bx to reduce patient discomfort.