PURPOSE: We evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel intraurethral prostatic bridge catheter in preventing temporary prostatic obstruction following targeted high energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent high energy transurethral microwave therapy under topical urethral anesthesia followed by placement of a prostatic bridge catheter, which remained indwelling as long as 1 month (prostatic bridge catheter group). Patient evaluation included determination of peak urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) and quality of life score at baseline, immediately following transurethral microwave therapy and prostatic bridge catheter placement, and periodically thereafter for 1 month. Results were retrospectively compared with those of 51 patients who underwent transurethral microwave therapy followed by standard temporary urinary catheterization, typically for 24 hours (standard catheterization group). RESULTS: Immediately following transurethral microwave therapy and prostatic bridge catheter placement significant improvements (p <0.0005) were observed in mean peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score of 59.3, 33.5 and 23.6%, respectively, compared with baseline values. Further improvements were noted up to 1 month, at which time mean peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score had improved 79.0, 54.9 and 56.5%, respectively, versus baseline (p <0.0005). In a retrospective comparison at baseline and 14 days between the prostatic bridge catheter group and standard catheterization group mean baseline peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score were similar. However, at the 14-day followup evaluation in the prostatic bridge catheter group mean peak flow rate was 101.8% higher, and I-PSS and quality of life score were 47.9 and 51.1% lower, respectively, than the corresponding values in the standard catheterization group (p <0.0005). The prostatic bridge catheter was well tolerated and remained indwelling throughout the entire 1-month followup in 48 of 54 patients (88.9%). Early prostatic bridge catheter removal was required in 3 patients (5.6%) due to urinary retention and in 3 (5.6%) due to catheter migration. CONCLUSIONS: Prostatic bridge catheter placement provides an effective and well tolerated option for preventing prostatic obstruction in the acute period after transurethral microwave therapy. This approach avoids the inconvenience and infection risk of standard indwelling catheters or intermittent self-catheterization. Prostatic bridge catheter insertion and removal are rapid, facile, nontraumatic procedures. Prostatic bridge catheter may potentially be used in an array of minimally invasive procedures involving thermal treatment of the prostate gland.
PURPOSE: We evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel intraurethral prostatic bridge catheter in preventing temporary prostatic obstruction following targeted high energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent high energy transurethral microwave therapy under topical urethral anesthesia followed by placement of a prostatic bridge catheter, which remained indwelling as long as 1 month (prostatic bridge catheter group). Patient evaluation included determination of peak urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) and quality of life score at baseline, immediately following transurethral microwave therapy and prostatic bridge catheter placement, and periodically thereafter for 1 month. Results were retrospectively compared with those of 51 patients who underwent transurethral microwave therapy followed by standard temporary urinary catheterization, typically for 24 hours (standard catheterization group). RESULTS: Immediately following transurethral microwave therapy and prostatic bridge catheter placement significant improvements (p <0.0005) were observed in mean peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score of 59.3, 33.5 and 23.6%, respectively, compared with baseline values. Further improvements were noted up to 1 month, at which time mean peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score had improved 79.0, 54.9 and 56.5%, respectively, versus baseline (p <0.0005). In a retrospective comparison at baseline and 14 days between the prostatic bridge catheter group and standard catheterization group mean baseline peak flow rate, I-PSS and quality of life score were similar. However, at the 14-day followup evaluation in the prostatic bridge catheter group mean peak flow rate was 101.8% higher, and I-PSS and quality of life score were 47.9 and 51.1% lower, respectively, than the corresponding values in the standard catheterization group (p <0.0005). The prostatic bridge catheter was well tolerated and remained indwelling throughout the entire 1-month followup in 48 of 54 patients (88.9%). Early prostatic bridge catheter removal was required in 3 patients (5.6%) due to urinary retention and in 3 (5.6%) due to catheter migration. CONCLUSIONS: Prostatic bridge catheter placement provides an effective and well tolerated option for preventing prostatic obstruction in the acute period after transurethral microwave therapy. This approach avoids the inconvenience and infection risk of standard indwelling catheters or intermittent self-catheterization. Prostatic bridge catheter insertion and removal are rapid, facile, nontraumatic procedures. Prostatic bridge catheter may potentially be used in an array of minimally invasive procedures involving thermal treatment of the prostate gland.
Authors: R Berges; K Dreikorn; K Höfner; S Madersbacher; M C Michel; R Muschter; M Oelke; O Reich; W Rulf; C Tschuschke; U Tunn Journal: Urologe A Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 0.639