Tamsulosin 0.8 mg daily dose in management of BPH patients with failed tamsulosin 0.4 mg monotherapy and unfit for surgical intervention.

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of administering double-dose tamsulosin (0.8 mg) for treating patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who have not responded to the standard single dose of tamsulosin (0.4 mg) and are deemed unsuitable for transurethral resection (TUR) intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2022 and July 2023, we prospectively analyzed 111 patients who were experiencing severe BPH symptoms. These patients received a double dose of tamsulosin for one month. We collected baseline characteristics such as age, body mass index, and underlying medical conditions. Various parameters including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), voided volume, and post-void residual volume were evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: All 111 patients completed the study. The mean age, PSA level, and prostate volume were 63.12 ± 4.83 years, 3.42 ± 0.93 ng/ml, and 50.37 ± 19.23 ml, respectively. Of these patients, 93 showed improvement in Qmax, post-void residual volume, and IPSS score (p-value = 0.001). The total IPSS score and total Qmax improved from 24.03 ± 2.49 and 7.72 ± 1.64 ml/sec to 16.41 ± 3.84 and 12.08 ± 2.37 ml/sec, respectively. CONCLUSION: Double-dose 0.8mg tamsulosin as an alpha-blocker therapy appears to be a viable temporary management option for BPH patients who have not responded to the standard single dose 0.4mg tamsulosin and are not suitable candidates for TUR intervention.

Distal hypospadias repair: Comparative study between snodgrass and transverse preputial onlay flap.

INTRODUCTION: Distal hypospadias repair has several operative strategies such as tubularized incised plate (TIP); Transverse preputial onlay flap (TPOF) and Modified Mathieu Procedure. The aim of our work is to compare between TIP and TPOF techniques in the outcome. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted this comparative study on 66 patients with different types of distal hypospadias divided in two groups A and B for TIP and TPOF respectively. We reported outcome and complications for both TIP and TPOF repair. Our results revealed mean operative time was significantly higher in group B (123.1 ± 6.8 min) than in group A (93.73 ± 3.9 min, P value < 0.001). Postoperative urinary fistula was reported in group A (15.2%) while no fistula in group B (p value = 0.05). The vertical slit appearance of meatus was better in group A (54.5%) than in group B (24.2%, P value 0.023). As regard to hypospadias objective scoring evaluation (HOSE) (Summary Figure) the meatal shape score was higher in group A (1.55 ± 0.51) than in group B (1.24 ± 0.44, p value = 0.0 l), the urinary stream score was significantly higher in group A (1.82 ± 0.39) than in group B (1.97 ± 0.17, p value = 0.04) and the urinary fistula score was significantly higher in group A (3.79 ± 0.60) than in group B (4 ± 0, p value = 0.04). DISCUSSION: Complications are more common after TIP than in TPOF. As regard the meatus shape, the naturally looking vertical slit like meatus was achieved more in the TIP than in TPOF. We advocate further studies with a large number of patients with a long follow up period. CONCLUSION: TPOF is a great option to consider in cases of distal hypospadias because it is an effective technique for primary distal hypospadias repair with a good cosmetic outcome and a low associated complication.