Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Publication year range
1.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis ; 25(2): 302-305, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34588631

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum) is a minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). We report on safety and efficacy of this method for treatment of recurrent urinary retention and relief of catheter dependency owing to BPE in multimorbid patients, considered unfit for surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 136 patients with recurrent urinary retention who underwent water vapor therapy in an ambulatory setting with periprostatic block and optional sedation between 11/2017 and 02/2021 in three urological departments. The objective was successful catheter withdrawal and continuing catheter independency after 3- and 12-months following treatment. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 80.3 years (±7.8), mean prostate volume 54 ml (±27.3), and mean catheter dependency before treatment was 4.8 months (±6.0). ASA classification was a followed: II: 10%, III: 71%, and IV: 19%. All procedures were performed successfully in an ambulatory setting. Perioperative complications were infrequent and minor (Clavien-Dindo Grade 1-2) and included haematuria in 4.4% and urinary tract infection in 3.9% of all cases. A total of 103 patients (78.6%) were able to void spontaneously after a median of 31 days. No significant differences in age, prostate volume, duration of catheter dependency, vapor injections, and ASA score were found between patients with successful or unsuccessful outcome. The mean follow-up period was 6.1 months (±5.9, range 1-22 months). A 3-month follow-up was available for 77 patients (75%) and 34 patients (33%) were followed for 12 months. After 3 and 12 months, 93.5 and 91% of patients remained catheter independent. Fifteen patients (11%) died during follow-up, with a mean overall survival of 7.7 months (±4.7). CONCLUSIONS: Water vapor therapy may prove to be a useful, minimally invasive treatment in a multimorbid population with catheter dependency after urinary retention, secondary to BPE, considered at highest risk or unfit for surgery. Future studies are warranted.


Subject(s)
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms , Prostatic Hyperplasia , Prostatic Neoplasms , Urinary Retention , Aged, 80 and over , Catheters/adverse effects , Humans , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/etiology , Male , Prostatic Hyperplasia/complications , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Prostatic Neoplasms/complications , Retrospective Studies , Steam , Treatment Outcome , Urinary Retention/etiology , Urinary Retention/therapy
2.
Urologe A ; 51(12): 1674-82, 2012 Dec.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23160605

ABSTRACT

In some countries plant extracts have belonged to the most popular drugs for the treatment of the benign prostatic syndrome (BPS) for decades; however, only few of the large number of published studies meet the criteria of the WHO benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) consensus conference. The few placebo-controlled long-term (study period >6 months) studies suggest a positive effect of some extracts (saw palmetto fruit, ß-sitosterol, urtica, rye grass and a saw palmetto/urtica combination) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), urinary flow rate, post-void residual volume but effects on prostate volume or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were only inconsistently demonstrable. To date no study has proven an effect on disease progression, such as acute urinary retention or need for surgical interventions. Due to the controversial data various extraction techniques and compositions of various products, neither American, European, British nor German BPH guidelines recommend plant extracts for the indication BPS although some placebo-controlled trials provided encouraging data. Further prospective studies according to WHO standards are required to determine the role of plant extracts for the management of BPS. For the indication of prostate cancer (PCa) plant extracts have been evaluated for disease prevention and management of several tumor stages but none of these studies have provided convincing evidence that plant extracts are superior to placebo and none of the Pica guidelines have recommended their use.Based on current knowledge plant extracts can never supplement evidence-based PCa management and should be used only in addition to the standard treatment. There is no scientific evidence for the use of dietary supplementation with high doses of vitamins or selenium-containing products.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Evidence-Based Medicine , Phytotherapy/statistics & numerical data , Plant Extracts/therapeutic use , Prostatic Hyperplasia/drug therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Comorbidity , Humans , Male , Placebo Effect , Prevalence , Prostatic Hyperplasia/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...