RESUMEN

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 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 highlighted, 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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is widely used to promote spontaneous passage of urinary stones. However, there is conflicting evidence on the actual role of MET. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the conformance of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MET with the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria, and to clarify the current role of MET in management of urinary stones on the basis of our findings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We carried out an electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases for RCTs on MET. For each RCT included, we created a checklist table documenting the minimum essential items that should be included in reports of RCTs according to the CONSORT 2010 statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Clinical heterogeneity between pooled studies in terms of the MET given, inclusion criteria, sample size, pre- and post-treatment imaging, and differential follow-up was profound. The overall methodological rigor of the pooled studies was low, as indicated by the moderate to poor conformance of the studies with the CONSORT criteria. The aforementioned reasons may explain the discrepancies found between the supporting results of several meta-analyses and those of well-designed placebo-controlled double-blind studies revealing no benefit from MET. Recent well-designed RCTs have shown no benefit from α-blockers versus placebo. However, on the basis of sensitivity analyses in a recently published meta-analysis, α-blockers may still promote spontaneous expulsion of large stones. CONCLUSIONS: Conflicting data on MET may be explained by clinical heterogeneity and methodological flaws. Urologists must decide whether to follow single, large, well-conducted RCTs or pooled data from meta-analyses. The latter still support selective use of MET for larger urinary stones. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review we tested the accuracy of the studies published on various medications given to promote spontaneous passage of stones from the ureter. Although the majority of the studies were not designed properly, there is still some evidence to support medical expulsive therapy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Attitudes regarding the safety of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in hypogonadal men with prostate cancer (PCa) have changed over the past few years with the emergence of case studies suggesting a low risk of cancer progression and a better understanding of the interaction of different levels of androgen with prostate cellular metabolism. This new view has the potential to change clinical practice. METHODS: Active members of the Canadian Urological Association were surveyed about their opinions on the safety of TRT in men with low-risk PCa, as well as their current prescribing habits. RESULTS: Of 57 responding urologists, 86% actively prescribe TRT in men with testosterone deficiency syndrome (TDS), 93% are involved in the treatment of men with PCa, and 95% offer active surveillance as a management option for low-grade/low-stage disease. Furthermore, 65% stated that they would offer TRT to men with TDS who were on active surveillance for PCa and 63% believed that TRT did not increase the risk of progression of PCa in these men. In terms of treatment methods, 96% believed TRT was safe for men who have undergone radical prostatectomy, while a smaller number felt it was safe for patients who have undergone brachytherapy (86%) or external beam radiation (84%). Despite these figures, only 35% of the surveyed physicians had ever offered TRT for men on active surveillance and only 42% actually had men in their practice who were taking testosterone while on active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The discrepancy between urologists' beliefs about the safety of TRT and their clinical practice patterns may be due to multiple factors, such as hesitation in recommending treatment in real-life practice, low numbers of eligible patients, absence of screening for testosterone deficiency in patients on active surveillance, and patient preference or fears. Furthermore, the difference in perceived safety in men treated by radical prostatectomy vs. radiation therapy suggests that some urologists are concerned that the radiated gland remaining in-situ may be "reactivated" by TRT. The results from this survey will be used as the basis of developing a national Canadian registry of men with low-grade/stage PCa who are receiving TRT while on active surveillance.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition that afflicts a large proportion of aging men. The primary care physician has an important role with the identification and early treatment of bothersome urinary symptoms caused by BPH. This includes a detailed history and physical exam, as well as initiation of a number of medications such as alpha-blockers, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. It is also very important for the primary care giver to determine when additional evaluation and referral to a urologist needs to occur, specifically when surgical intervention is needed. This review will summarize the management of this common disorder and is designed to aid the generalist with the pertinent information needed to provide excellent care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease that affects men as they age. Historically the treatment has been primarily surgical in nature, but over the past 25 years significant advances in medical therapy have been made, sparing some men from interventional procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article highlights the current state-of-the-art with respect to medical therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to BPH (BPH-LUTS) including a review of landmark studies and recent areas of research in the field. RESULTS: Alpha blockers are considered first line when treating BPH-LUTS in men with small prostates and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) are recommended in men with large symptomatic prostates. While, phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors are the mainstay of erectile dysfunction therapy, they also play a role in treating BPH-LUTS. If men have persistent irritative storage symptoms after first line BPH therapy then overactive bladder (OAB) medications can be added or substituted. Combination therapies can be used to provide short term symptom relief with long term disease management. CONCLUSIONS: Medical therapy remains the main treatment option for men suffering from BPH-LUTS. Numerous medical options are available that can be tailored to meet the individual's needs depending on their personal and prostate characteristics. An algorithmic approach, as we have defined within this article, can be a helpful guide to this decision-making process.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)