Neodymium:YAG laser ablation of the prostate gland--acute perioperative morbidity and short-term outcome

Epididymitis after prostate brachytherapy

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the incidence, time-course, and potential predisposing factors for what was clinically diagnosed as postimplant epididymitis.

METHODS

Of 517 patients randomized and treated on two treatment protocols, with a planned total accrual of 1200, 5 patients were identified who developed clinically diagnosed epididymitis after iodine-125 or pallidium-103 prostate brachytherapy. Implants were performed by standard techniques, using a modified peripheral loading pattern. Perioperative antibiotics (cefazolin and ciprofloxacin) were given to 258 patients, according to physician preference. Treatment-related morbidity was monitored by mailed questionnaires, using standard American Urological Association (AUA) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Patients who did not respond to the mailed questionnaires were interviewed by telephone. Although the patients were not queried specifically regarding epididymitis, its occurrence was noted when discovered in the course of follow-up examinations.

RESULTS

Postimplant epididymitis occurred in 5 (1%) of 517 consecutive brachytherapy patients. None of the 5 patients had had a prior history of orchitis, epididymitis, vasectomy, or preimplant catheterization. The symptoms of epididymitis first appeared at 4, 7, 10, 150, and 300 days after implantation. Patients with epididymitis had prostate volumes, preimplant AUA scores, and ages typical of other implant patients. No association was apparent between postimplant epididymitis and the degree of implant-related prostate swelling or the number of seeds implanted. Only the preimplant AUA score predicted for epididymitis, but 2 of the 5 patients had low scores. Only 1 (0.4%) of the 258 patients who received perioperative antibiotics developed epididymitis, and 4 (1.5%) of the 259 patients with prophylactic antibiotics developed epididymitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Epididymitis is an uncommon postimplant complication occurring in 1% of a large patient cohort. That epididymitis patients had greater preimplant AUA scores is consistent with a retrograde infection route, at least in some cases.

Epididymitis after transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of prostate gland

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incidence, predisposing factors, and time-course of epididymitis after transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) needle biopsy of the prostate gland.

METHODS

A total of 739 consecutive patients underwent TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate gland from January 2000 through December 2002 using a systematic approach, 18-gauge needles, and antibiotic prophylaxis. A median of 9 biopsies was obtained per patient (range 4 to 16). All cases of epididymitis occurring within 6 months of biopsy were attributed to the TRUS procedure. The parameters evaluated for epididymitis included patient age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen density, number of biopsies obtained, and number of biopsies positive for malignancy.

RESULTS

Five patients (0.7%) developed biopsy-related epididymitis with a median onset of 85 days (range 13 to 143) after biopsy. Patients developing epididymitis were statistically older, with a trend for a greater number of prostate biopsies (P = 0.071 on linear regression analysis). Only 1 patient developed epididymitis within 3 weeks of biopsy. All cases of epididymitis responded to therapeutic antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Epididymitis after TRUS-guided biopsy is a relatively uncommon event, with an incidence of approximately 1% and an onset of weeks to months after the procedure. Patients who developed epididymitis were statistically older, with a trend for a greater number of prostate biopsies taken.

A non-randomized comparative study of visual laser ablation and transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the preferred surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for the past 50 years. Alternative methods for treating BPH such as visual laser ablation (VLAP) have been established during the past decade. In order to assess the safety and efficacy of VLAP, this alternative method was performed using a Urolase fiber and neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser, and compared to results obtained in patients treated with TURP for BPH.

METHODS

In this non-randomized comparative study, 100 BPH patients were equally split between treatment with VLAP or TURP, and their cases compared. The efficacy was assessed using an International Prostate Symptom Score, urinary flow rates, post-void residual urinary volume and an estimated prostate volume.

RESULTS

There was a clinically significant improvement in all parameters in both groups. In the VLAP and TURP groups, 92.0% and 81.6%, 90.2% and 86.2 and 93.1% and 100.0% were categorized as effectively-treated cases at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively, respectively. No severe side effect was seen in VLAP group. The total and post-operative lengths of hospitalization in the VLAP group were shorter, but the duration of post-operative bladder irrigation was longer in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although TURP remains the standard surgical treatment for BPH, VLAP is associated with less morbidity and the clinical outcome is similar compared to patients treated with TURP. VLAP in conjunction with TURP may result in less risk of postoperative urinary retention and vesical irritability.