Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP): Surgery without Using a 3-Way Catheter

Adam V. Jones, S. Ehsanullah, A. Birring, Connor Gascoigne, Sid Singh, A. Ginepri, I. Apakama
{"title":"Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP): Surgery without Using a 3-Way Catheter","authors":"Adam V. Jones, S. Ehsanullah, A. Birring, Connor Gascoigne, Sid Singh, A. Ginepri, I. Apakama","doi":"10.22374/JELEU.V1I2.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"  \nTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) continues to be an effective intervention for certain indications; and this procedure is still one of the most commonly performed in urology. The use of a 3-way catheter with continuous bladder irrigation (CBI) post-TURP is widely practiced in a bid to prevent clot retention. We report our unique experience with the use of 2-way urethral catheters post-TURP surgery. \n  \nMethodology \nData was prospectively collected for 143 consecutive patients who underwent a bipolar TURP between July 2015 and October 2017. The following outcomes where measured and compared against the literature: resection time, resected weight, haemoglobin level, hospital stay, catheterization days, transfusion rate and complications. \nResults \nTwo-way 18-French catheters were used in 132/143 (91.7%) patients. The remaining 11/143 (8.3%) patients had a 3-way 22-French catheter and CBI immediately post-TURP. There were no incidences of clot retention requiring a return to theatre. There were 2/132 (1.5%) patients requiring transfusion who received 2-way catheterization. The average resection time was 44.8 (10-100) minutes, with a mean resected weight of 22.8 (2.0-70.0) grams. Post-operatively, we found minimal drop in haemoglobin levels, with a fall of 0.7 g/dL on average, with a range of 0.1-3.4 g/dL. Mean length of stay following TURP was 1.45 days (1-18), and 101/132 (76.5%) of patients had a successful trial without catheter on the first post-operative day. \nConclusion \nOur outcomes compare favorably with the published data. This study suggests it may be possible to reduce the cost and resources associated with the use of 3-way catheters and CBI post-TURP surgery by using a 2-way catheter instead. Despite this, appropriate patient selection for this novel technique needs to be adopted. Our results would suggest that patients with smaller prostates or limited resections might be suitable for a 2-way urethral catheter post-TURP.","PeriodicalId":136362,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endoluminal Endourology","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endoluminal Endourology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22374/JELEU.V1I2.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

  Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) continues to be an effective intervention for certain indications; and this procedure is still one of the most commonly performed in urology. The use of a 3-way catheter with continuous bladder irrigation (CBI) post-TURP is widely practiced in a bid to prevent clot retention. We report our unique experience with the use of 2-way urethral catheters post-TURP surgery.   Methodology Data was prospectively collected for 143 consecutive patients who underwent a bipolar TURP between July 2015 and October 2017. The following outcomes where measured and compared against the literature: resection time, resected weight, haemoglobin level, hospital stay, catheterization days, transfusion rate and complications. Results Two-way 18-French catheters were used in 132/143 (91.7%) patients. The remaining 11/143 (8.3%) patients had a 3-way 22-French catheter and CBI immediately post-TURP. There were no incidences of clot retention requiring a return to theatre. There were 2/132 (1.5%) patients requiring transfusion who received 2-way catheterization. The average resection time was 44.8 (10-100) minutes, with a mean resected weight of 22.8 (2.0-70.0) grams. Post-operatively, we found minimal drop in haemoglobin levels, with a fall of 0.7 g/dL on average, with a range of 0.1-3.4 g/dL. Mean length of stay following TURP was 1.45 days (1-18), and 101/132 (76.5%) of patients had a successful trial without catheter on the first post-operative day. Conclusion Our outcomes compare favorably with the published data. This study suggests it may be possible to reduce the cost and resources associated with the use of 3-way catheters and CBI post-TURP surgery by using a 2-way catheter instead. Despite this, appropriate patient selection for this novel technique needs to be adopted. Our results would suggest that patients with smaller prostates or limited resections might be suitable for a 2-way urethral catheter post-TURP.
经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP):不使用三通导管的手术
经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)在某些适应症下仍然是一种有效的治疗方法,而且这种手术仍然是泌尿外科最常用的手术之一。为了防止血块滞留,TURP术后广泛使用三向导尿管和持续膀胱冲洗(CBI)。我们报告了我们在 TURP 术后使用双向尿道导管的独特经验。 方法 对 2015 年 7 月至 2017 年 10 月间接受双极 TURP 的 143 名连续患者的数据进行了前瞻性收集。测量以下结果并与文献进行比较:切除时间、切除体重、血红蛋白水平、住院时间、导尿天数、输血率和并发症。结果 132/143 例(91.7%)患者使用了双向 18 法分导管。其余 11/143 例(8.3%)患者在手术后立即使用了 3 向 22 法分导管和 CBI。没有发生需要返回手术室的血块滞留情况。2/132(1.5%)名需要输血的患者接受了双向导管。平均切除时间为 44.8 (10-100) 分钟,平均切除重量为 22.8 (2.0-70.0) 克。术后,我们发现血红蛋白水平下降幅度很小,平均下降 0.7 克/分升,范围在 0.1-3.4 克/分升之间。TURP 术后平均住院时间为 1.45 天(1-18 天),101/132(76.5%)例患者在术后第一天成功进行了无导管试验。结论 我们的结果与已发表的数据相比较为理想。这项研究表明,在 TURP 术后使用双向导管可以减少与使用三向导管和 CBI 相关的成本和资源。尽管如此,这种新技术仍需对患者进行适当的选择。我们的研究结果表明,前列腺较小或切除范围有限的患者可能适合在 TURP 术后使用双向尿道导管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信