RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is common in the ageing male. Clinical manifestations like retention impact on a patient's quality of life. Alterations in androgen activity at the androgen receptor complex level in the prostate contribute to prostatic hyperplasia with the highest incidence occurring in males in their 70's. There remains a paucity of cases in young males who develop acute urinary retention secondary to BPH. We present a case of a 27-year-old male who developed acute urinary retention secondary to BPH who required a Holmium Laser Enucleation of his Prostate (HOLEP). CASE DESCRIPTION: A 27 year old man was admitted in acute urinary retention. BPH was diagnosed via way of radiological imaging and histological assessment. After pre-operative sperm banking and suprapubic catheterisation, the patient underwent a HOLEP. He had biochemically confirmed hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism which was at odds with his muscular, physical appearance. Total testosterone levels had fluctuated following admission suggesting an exogenous substance was interfering with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis but he denied exogenous steroid use. RESULT: The patient successfully passed his voiding trial on the second post-operative day and remained catheter free. Post-operative uroflowmetry and sexual function remain unknown as patient disengaged with follow up. CONCLUSION: HOLEP prostatectomy is a safe and effective way of managing BPH in younger patients following sperm banking and assessment by endocrinology.
Asunto(s)
Terapia por Láser , Láseres de Estado Sólido , Hiperplasia Prostática , Resección Transuretral de la Próstata , Retención Urinaria , Humanos , Masculino , Adulto , Hiperplasia Prostática/cirugía , Próstata/patología , Holmio , Resección Transuretral de la Próstata/métodos , Calidad de Vida , Resultado del Tratamiento , Terapia por Láser/métodos , Semen , Láseres de Estado Sólido/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence and guidelines increasingly support an individualised approach to care for people with type 2 diabetes and individualisation of glycaemic targets in response to patient factors. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review of the literature for evidence of factors impacting upon glycated haemoglobin target individualisation in adults with type 2 diabetes. Data were analysed thematically with the themes inductively derived from article review. FINDINGS: Evidence suggests that presence of cardiovascular disease, hypoglycaemia unawareness, severe hypoglycaemia, limited life expectancy, advanced age, long diabetes duration, frailty, cognitive impairment, disability, extensive comorbidity, diabetes distress and patient preference should inform the setting of glycaemic targets. CONCLUSION: The management of people with diabetes is complex. In clinical practice, many patients will have a variety of factors that should be considered when personalising their care. Approaches to personalised care and glycaemic treatment targets should be undertaken as part of a shared decision-making process between physician and patient. Use of electronic records might enable greater efficiency and more widespread use of personalised care plans for people with diabetes.