PD61-02 RE-TREATMENT FOR PERSISTENT LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS AFTER CONVECTIVE WATER VAPOR THERMAL PROSTATE ABLATION

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology IV (PD61)1 Apr 2020PD61-02 RE-TREATMENT FOR PERSISTENT LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS AFTER CONVECTIVE WATER VAPOR THERMAL PROSTATE ABLATION Garrick Greear*, Thomas DiPina, and Seth Bechis Garrick Greear*Garrick Greear* More articles by this author , Thomas DiPinaThomas DiPina More articles by this author , and Seth BechisSeth Bechis More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000978.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Convective water vapor thermal prostate ablation is a minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We present data from a cohort of patients undergoing convective water vapor thermal treatment of the prostate who underwent additional treatment for relief of symptoms. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients treated with water vapor thermal therapy at a single institution from August 2017 to August 2019 was conducted. Patient demographics, relevant pre- and peri-operative data, and international prostate symptoms scores (IPSS) were evaluated. Patients who underwent a subsequent procedure were compared to the cohort who did not undergo re-treatment. Descriptive statistics and Student’s t-test were performed. RESULTS: Data from 136 consecutive patients undergoing water vapor thermal therapy were collected and analyzed. The re-treatment rate over the study period was 7.4% with a median follow up of 183 days (IQR 90.7 – 295). Longer follow up was observed in patients who underwent a subsequent procedure (median 331 days, IQR 208 – 332). Men in the re-treatment cohort tended to be older (73.0 vs. 66.7 yrs, p = 0.04). No difference in prostate size, baseline IPSS score, number of treatments, or the treatment of a median lobe appeared to be associated with re-treatment (Table 1). The modality of retreatment was: transurethral resection of prostate (n = 5), photo-vaporization (n = 3), sacral neuromodulation (1), simple prostatectomy (1). IPSS scores appeared to diverge from the main cohort around 6 months post-operatively (p < 0.02) (Table 2.). CONCLUSIONS: The re-treatment rate after water vapor thermal therapy for BPH is low. Men in this cohort tended to be older and worsening symptom scores were observed at 6 months post-operatively. These data can inform counseling as to the timing of re-intervention in men with persistent bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms following minimally invasive outlet reduction. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e1280-e1280 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Garrick Greear* More articles by this author Thomas DiPina More articles by this author Seth Bechis More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...