Search

Introduction: Intermittent catheterization (IC) is one of the fundamental aspects of managing patients with chronic urinary retention. Although reuse of catheters has been allowed to be chosen as the first option for IC, the optimal method of IC and the type of catheter has been a long-standing debate. We conducted a literature review regarding risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) and the costs associated with different methods and catheters. Methods: A MEDLINE search via PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO host was conducted in March 2018. The date of publication was limited to 2014 to present/current. Results: Single use of catheters (hydrophilic-coated [HC] or uncoated [UC]) was considered to impose a lower risk of UTI in all studies, except in one study that included children, but did not test their dexterity to handle HC catheters. Cost-effectiveness of single-use catheters was confirmed by all studies during this period. Conclusions: Reuse of catheters exposes the patient to a plethora of possible cleaning techniques and duration of catheter use. Patient adherence to cleaning method cannot be predicted and this further amplifies the risk of complications and their burden on the healthcare system. We recommend a patient-centred approach to consider HC catheters as the first option, while considering the patient's/caregiver's ability to accommodate the usage technique. Single-use UC catheters, and finally reuse of catheters are considered as next options if HC catheters are found difficult to handle (especially in children doing self-catheterization). Larger trials investigating this matter are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The present descriptive analysis carried out by a pan-Canadian panel of expert healthcare practitioners (HCPs) summarizes best practices for erectile rehabilitation following prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. This algorithm was designed to support an online sexual health and rehabilitation e-clinic (SHARe-Clinic), which provides biomedical guidance and supportive care to Canadian men recovering from PCa treatment. The implications of the algorithm may be used to inform clinical practice in community settings. Methods: Men's sexual health experts convened for the TrueNTH Sexual Health and Rehabilitation Initiative Consensus Meeting to address concerns regarding erectile dysfunction (ED) therapy and management following treatment for PCa. The meeting brought together experts from across Canada for a discussion of current practices, latest evidence-based literature review, and patient interviews. Results: An algorithm for ED treatment following PCa treatment is presented that accounts for treatment received (surgery or radiation), degree of nerve-sparing, and level of pro-erectile treatment invasiveness based on patient and partner values. This algorithm provides an approach from both a biomedical and psychosocial focus that is tailored to the patient/partner presentation. Regular sexual activity is recommended, and the importance of partner involvement in the treatment decision-making process is high-lighted, including the management of partner sexual concerns. Conclusions: The algorithm proposed by expert consensus considers important factors like the type of PCa treatment, the timeline of erectile recovery, and patient values, with the goal of becoming a nationwide standard for erectile rehabilitation following PCa treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Half of men aged > 60 years will develop benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with 40% of these men having moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). There is limited knowledge on a head-to-head comparison of prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) and convective water vapor ablation (Rezum) for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH. We sought to compare randomized controlled trials with 3-year clinical outcome data., Materials and Methods: After a thorough literature search, two multicenter sham-controlled double-blind randomized trials for UroLift and Rezum were identified and compared. Both studies had similar designs, baseline characteristics, reported outcomes, and low risks of bias., Results: Rezum and UroLift resulted in significant improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 3 months (51.4% and 49.9%, respectively) and 50% reduction of IPSS Quality of Life that was durable across all time points. At 24 and 36 months, there was a statistically significant difference in IPSS between groups, favoring Rezum (-11.2 ± 7.3 versus -9.13 ± 7.62, p = 0.04, and -11.0 ± 7.1 versus -8.83 ± 7.41, p = 0.04, respectively). While Rezum had greater improvement in Qmax at 3 months (6.4 ± 7.2 versus 4.29 ± 5.16, p < 0.01), there was no difference in improvement from 12-36 months between treatments. Only UroLift experienced improvements of Men's Sexual Health Questionnaire- Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD) function from baseline and was better than Rezum at all time points (p < 0.01). Rezum failed to significantly reduce the MSHQ-EjD bother at 3 months, while UroLift demonstrated a significant reduction of 27.56% (p < 0.01). Both systems offered equal improvements in the bother score by 12-36 months. Surgical re-treatment rates favored Rezum over Urolift (4.4% vs. 10.7%, respectively)., Conclusions: Rezum achieved a greater improvement in symptom relief compared to UroLift. Improvement in ejaculatory dysfunction in patients treated with UroLift was greater than Rezum.