OBJECTIVE: To determine the most efficient method to follow patients after transurethral prostatectomy (TURP) such that only those patients suffering significant post-operative problems are reviewed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised two parts: (1) a retrospective review of the case notes of 100 consecutive patients who underwent TURP under one consultant to determine whether any factors could be identified pre- or post-operatively by which those patients most likely to require clinic review could be selected and; (2) a prospective review of the succeeding 100 patients undergoing TURP, using a telephone 'screening' call made by the urological research nurse 3 months after the operation. Patients who requested follow-up and those patients with malignancy or admitted in high-pressure chronic retention were reviewed in the out-patient department. RESULTS: In the first part, 17 patients (17%) required an out-patient review for malignancy. Only nine patients (11%) with benign histology required further treatment after TURP; this subgroup could not be identified on the basis of their pre- or post-operative symptoms. In the second part, 23 patients were not reviewed by telephone; 14 had carcinoma of the prostate, eight had no telephone and one could not be contacted after seven attempts. Of the remaining 77 contacted by phone, 61 (79%) declined further clinic review and 16 (21%) requested follow-up for persistent problems. A mean of two calls was made per patient and the mean duration of each call was 6.3 min. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pre- or post-operative symptoms at the time of discharge, there is no reliable method of identifying those patients who have a poor result after TURP. Telephone screening of patients at 3 months identified successfully those patients who required an out-patient review and enabled resources to be targeted towards this difficult group of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the most efficient method to follow patients after transurethral prostatectomy (TURP) such that only those patients suffering significant post-operative problems are reviewed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised two parts: (1) a retrospective review of the case notes of 100 consecutive patients who underwent TURP under one consultant to determine whether any factors could be identified pre- or post-operatively by which those patients most likely to require clinic review could be selected and; (2) a prospective review of the succeeding 100 patients undergoing TURP, using a telephone 'screening' call made by the urological research nurse 3 months after the operation. Patients who requested follow-up and those patients with malignancy or admitted in high-pressure chronic retention were reviewed in the out-patient department. RESULTS: In the first part, 17 patients (17%) required an out-patient review for malignancy. Only nine patients (11%) with benign histology required further treatment after TURP; this subgroup could not be identified on the basis of their pre- or post-operative symptoms. In the second part, 23 patients were not reviewed by telephone; 14 had carcinoma of the prostate, eight had no telephone and one could not be contacted after seven attempts. Of the remaining 77 contacted by phone, 61 (79%) declined further clinic review and 16 (21%) requested follow-up for persistent problems. A mean of two calls was made per patient and the mean duration of each call was 6.3 min. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pre- or post-operative symptoms at the time of discharge, there is no reliable method of identifying those patients who have a poor result after TURP. Telephone screening of patients at 3 months identified successfully those patients who required an out-patient review and enabled resources to be targeted towards this difficult group of patients.
Authors: Rebecca C Fallaize; Christine Tinline-Purvis; Anthony R Dixon; Anne-Marie Pullyblank Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 1.891