BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the usefulness of a temporary prostatic urethral stent to determine which complex surgical patients would benefit from definitive surgical management of their benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our benign prostatic hyperplasia database and identified all patients that received at least one temporary prostatic urethral stent between April 2008 and December 2010. RESULTS: Forty Spanner(TM) stents were placed in 20 patients. Mean age was 78.1 years and prostate size was 62.1 cm(3). Urinary retention was present in 60% (12/20) of patients. No statistically significant changes in mean maximal flow rate, average flow rate, and post void residual was noted. Seven patients (35%) did well with the stent and progressed to definitive surgical management whereas 10% of the cohort (2/20) leaked urine with the stent in place and subsequently went back to catheter management. Another 30% (6/20) were unable to tolerate the stent while 1 patient passed away unrelated to the stent. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the temporary prostatic urethral stent provided a good provocative test that enabled patients to experience what their voiding status would be if they were to undergo definitive surgical management.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the usefulness of a temporary prostatic urethral stent to determine which complex surgical patients would benefit from definitive surgical management of their benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our benign prostatic hyperplasia database and identified all patients that received at least one temporary prostatic urethral stent between April 2008 and December 2010. RESULTS: Forty Spanner(TM) stents were placed in 20 patients. Mean age was 78.1 years and prostate size was 62.1 cm(3). Urinary retention was present in 60% (12/20) of patients. No statistically significant changes in mean maximal flow rate, average flow rate, and post void residual was noted. Seven patients (35%) did well with the stent and progressed to definitive surgical management whereas 10% of the cohort (2/20) leaked urine with the stent in place and subsequently went back to catheter management. Another 30% (6/20) were unable to tolerate the stent while 1 patient passed away unrelated to the stent. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the temporary prostatic urethral stent provided a good provocative test that enabled patients to experience what their voiding status would be if they were to undergo definitive surgical management.