Malament stitch and increased risk of bladder neck stenosis: any association following open prostatectomy in Enugu Southeast Nigeria

Background Malament stitch is one of the effective techniques employed to minimize bleeding in simple open prostatectomy but concerns about possibility of increased risk of bladder neck stenosis has limited its routine use. Aim We studied patients who had open prostatectomy with Malament stitch to determine the incidence of bladder neck stenosis amongst them. Material and methods This was a prospective study of 72patients who had simple open prostatectomy in which malament stitch was applied from 2010 to 2020. A proforma was designed to collect data. Pretreatment variables were transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) volume of prostate, pretreatment IPSS value, postvoidal residual urine volume before surgery, weight of enucleated prostate adenoma, time to removal of Malament stitch. Outcome measures were done with post treatment IPSS and PVR at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Cystoscopy was done at 3 months or 6 months for patients with rising outcome measures to determine presence of bladder neck stenosis. Results The mean age of patients in this study was 68.3 years (SD = 7.1, range 52–82). The mean of the pretreatment score for IPSS was 30.7 (SD = 3.9, range 18–34) and 5.9 (SD = 0.2) for QOLS. The mean weight of prostate estimated with ultrasound was 169.5 g and mean weight of enucleated adenoma of the prostate was 132.5 g. The mean time of removal of Malament stitch was 23.1 h. Only 3 (4.2%) patients required cystoscopy because of increasing IPSS and PVR at 3 months postprostatectomy. 2 (2.8%) patients out of 72patients were confirmed to have bladder neck stenosis at cystoscopy. Conclusion Malament stitch did not lead to significant incidence of bladder neck stenosis in this study.

The importance of surgical access in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer and abnormal prostate anatomy

Background. The increased volume of the prostate in patients with confirmed prostate cancer (pc) is observed in 10 % of cases. The limitations of external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy associated with large prostate volume and obstructive symptoms define radical prostatectomy (Rp) as the only possible treatment for prostate cancer in these patients. The purpose of the study was to determine the importance of the surgical approach in radical prostatectomy in patients with abnormal anatomy of the prostate. Material and methods. The study group consisted of patients with a prostate volume of more than 80 cm3 (n=40) who underwent a robot prostatectomy. The comparison group was represented by patients also selected by the prostate volume ≥ 80 cm3, who underwent classical open prostatectomy (n=44). The groups were comparable in age and psa level. The average prostate volume in the study group was 112.2 ± 26 cm 3(80–195 cm 3). The average prostate volume in the comparison group was 109.8 ± 18.7 cm3 (80–158 cm 3) (р>0.05). Both groups had favorable morphological characteristics. Results. The average surgery time difference was 65 minutes in favor of the open prostatectomy (p<0.05). The average blood loss volume in the study group was 282.5 ± 227.5 ml (50–1000 ml). The average blood loss volume in the group with open prostatectomy was 505.7 ± 382.3 ml (50–2000 ml). Positive surgical margin in the robotic prostatectomy was not detected, at 6.9 % in the group with open prostatectomy (p<0.05). According to the criterion of urinary continence, the best results were obtained in the group of robotic prostatectomy (p<0.05). Overall and relapse-free 5-year survival did not show a statistically significant difference. Conclusion. The use of robotic prostatectomy in a group of patients with a large prostate volume (≥ 80 cm3) allows us to achieve better functional and oncological outcomes.

Perioperative Outcomes of Transurethral Resection, Open Prostatectomy, and Laser Therapy in the Surgical Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction: A “Real-World” Data Analysis from the URO-Cert Prostate Centers

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The aim of the study is to compare length of hospital stay, transfusion rates, and re-intervention rates during hospitalization for transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P), open prostatectomy (OP), and laser therapy (LT) for surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> URO-Cert is an organization, in which clinical data of prostatic diseases from 2 university, 19 public, and 3 private hospitals and 270 office-based urologists are collected in order to document treatment quality. Data on diagnostics, therapy, and course of disease are recorded web based. The analysis includes datasets from 2005 to 2017. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 10,420 patients, 8,389 were treated with TUR-P, 1,334 with OP, and 697 with LT. Median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR: 4–7) for TUR-P, 9 days (IQR: 7–11) for OP, and 5 days (IQR: 4–6) for LT (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). Risk for a hospital stay ≥7 days was higher for OP versus TUR-P (OR: 7.25; 95% CI = 6.27–8.36; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and LT (OR: 17.89; 95% CI = 14.12–22.65; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and higher for TUR-P versus LT (OR: 2.47; 95% CI = 2.03–3.01; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). OP had a significantly higher risk for transfusions than TUR-P (OR: 2.44; 95% CI = 1.74–3.41; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and LT (OR: 3.32; 95% CI = 1.56–7.01; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). Transfusion rates were not significantly different between TUR-P and LT (OR: 1.36; 95% CI = 0.66–2.79; <i>p</i> = 0.51). Risk of re-intervention was not different between all 3 approaches. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> OP was associated with higher transfusion rates and longer hospital stay than TUR-P and LT. Risk of transfusion was not different between TUR-P and LT, but TUR-P was inferior to LT concerning length of hospital stay. Re-intervention rates during hospitalization did not differ between the groups.

Transvesical Prostatectomy after Transurethral Resection- Need for Retention of Skills for Open Prostatectomy: A Case Report

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is a common cause of bladder outlet obstruction BPH. Transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) remains the gold standard of surgical therapy but have limitations in handling large prostates. We report a case of a patient with a large prostate that had TURP, later developed acute urinary retention and subsequently had transvesical prostatectomy with a good outcome. There is need for retention of skills for open prostatectomy despite the crave for acquisition of endoscopic/ minimally invasive skills.