Taha DE. Prostatic resection cavity large stone post transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). A rare case scenario.
Int J Surg Case Rep 2021;
81:105726. [PMID:
33721825 PMCID:
PMC7970351 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijscr.2021.105726]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2021] [Revised: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostatic cavity stone post TURP should be highlighted in the surgeon mind in patient with persistent storage LUTS post TURP.
CT adequately burden the stone suspected.
Persistent storage symptoms post TURP was the main complaint.
Incidental stone occupying the prostatic fossa post TURP is a remote possibility but it should by highlighted to raise urologist awareness for its possibility.
Introduction
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compromise the mainstay surgical treatment of LUTS due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The storage symptoms post TURP may be attributed to urinary tract infection (UTI), preoperative detrusor over-activities, and residual prostatic adenoma causing voiding symptoms.
Presentation of case
A 56 year old male presented storage LUTS (mainly frequency and urgency) since two years. Two years earlier, he underwent uncomplicated monopolar TURP. The patient has occasional straining and intermittent urine. No history of hematuria. No notable medical history was present. Digital rectal examination showed small prostate. Anal tone and Bulbocavernosal reflex were intact. CT showed a large vesical stone extending into the prostatic fossa measuring 51.5 mm × 67.0 mm. The patient was managed by suprapubic cystolitholapaxy.
Discussion
Post TURP LUTS necessitates evaluation with a thorough history and physical, including International Prostate Symptom Score, and urine culture to rule out infection. In a rare case report, delayed occurrence of storage and obstructive voiding symptoms after TURP can be caused by dystrophic calcification of the prostatic resection cavity. The stone could have been due to a metal or plastic piece of the resectoscope embedded in the prostatic cavity, but, this postulation was deferred based on the non-attached stone to the mucosa as confirmed by cystoscope. In such case, based on the large stone burden, more cost would be a potential burden, and longer operative time, the open cystolitholapaxy is the modality of choice.
Conclusion
Prostatic cavity stone is a rare pathology. Incidental stone occupying the prostatic fossa post TURP is a remote possibility but it should by highlighted to raise urologist awareness for its possibility.
Collapse