Clinical significance of prostatic-urethral angulation on the treatment outcome of patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia treated with tamsulosin hydrochloride.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the prostatic-urethral angulation (PUA) on the treatment efficacy of selective alpha-1A receptor blocker in male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 patients with LUTS/BPH and with mean age 53.3 ± 6.3 (range 47-70) were included in our prospective comparative study. The patients were classified into 2 groups as a consecutive cases 40 in each one depending on the PUA either ≤ 35° (group A) or > 35° (group B). PUA and different prostatic parameters were measured using transrectal ultrasound. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), the International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life score (IPSS/QoL score), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual (PVR) volume were compared between the groups. The clinical significance of PUA was evaluated after 8 weeks of medical treatment with tamsulosin hydrochloride 0.4 mg daily. RESULTS: Baseline evaluation (pre-treatment) for both groups were comparable to each other with no clinically significant difference regarding age, PSA, IPSS/QoL score, Q(max) and PVR volume (P-value > 0.05). Comparison of parameters after 8 weeks showed that tamsulosin hydrochloride improved the total IPSS and all subscores (P < 0.001), QoL (P = 0.001), Q(max) (P = 0.002), and PVR (P = 0.04) in group A (Table 1). CONCLUSION: Tamsulosin hydrochloride appears to be less effective in improving IPSS/Qol score, Qmax and PVR in patients with lager PUA. The PUA might be a predictor for the treatment efficacy of α-blockers and more studies are warranted in the future before the final conclusion.

Role of posterior tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of refractory monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the early clinical and urodynamic results of posterior tibial nerve stimulation in patients with refractory monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 28 patients with refractory monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis to 2 equal groups. Group 1 received a weekly session of posterior tibial nerve stimulation for 12 weeks and group 2 was the placebo group. Evaluation was performed in each group at baseline and after posterior tibial nerve stimulation to compare clinical and urodynamic findings. Another clinical assessment was done 3 months after the first followup. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in baseline clinical and urodynamic data. Overall, 13 patients (46.4%) had detrusor overactivity and 14 (50%) had decreased bladder capacity. After treatment 11 group 1 patients (78.6%) had a partial or full response to posterior tibial nerve stimulation but only 2 (14.3%) in group 2 had a partial response (p = 0.002). Also, the average number of wet nights in group 1 was significantly lower than at baseline (p = 0.002). All urodynamic parameters significantly improved in group 1. In contrast, the number of wet nights and urodynamic parameters did not change significantly in group 2. At 3-month followup the number of patients with a partial or full response in group 1 had decreased from 11 (78.6%) to 6 (42.9%). No change was evident in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior tibial nerve stimulation can be a viable treatment option in some patients with refractory monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis. However, deterioration in some responders with time suggests the need for maintenance protocols.