Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1989 Sep 23;299(6702):762–767. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6702.762

Outcome of elective prostatectomy.

D E Neal 1, P D Ramsden 1, L Sharples 1, A Smith 1, P H Powell 1, R A Styles 1, R J Webb 1
PMCID: PMC1837610  PMID: 2508914

Abstract

OBJECTIVES--To determine the symptomatic and urodynamic outcome of elective prostatectomy and to establish whether the outcome is influenced or can be predicted by preoperative urodynamic measurements. DESIGN--Prospective non-randomised study with follow up at a mean of 11 months after operation. Most men were assessed jointly by a urologist and a general practitioner. SETTING--Department of urology in a teaching hospital serving a large district population. PATIENTS--253 Men listed for elective prostatectomy because of symptoms and low urinary flow rates (less than 15 ml/s) and excluding those already on a waiting list or with acute urinary retention, clinically apparent prostatic cancer, and neurological or cerebrovascular disease; 217 (86%) were followed up. INTERVENTION--Elective prostatectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Classification on the basis of relief of symptoms assessed by patients and urologist and general practitioner and of symptom scores obtained by questionnaire. RESULTS--Of the 217 men followed up, 171 (79%) had a satisfactory subjective review and 155 (72%) had a satisfactory review and also low symptom scores. An unsatisfactory outcome was associated with preoperative symptoms of urge incontinence, small prostatic size and resected weight, low voiding pressures, and low urethral resistance. Preoperative maximum urinary flow rates did not predict outcome. Men with poor outcome could be classified into two groups: those with irritative symptoms who were more likely before operation to have had urge incontinence and detrusor instability and men with symptoms of poor urinary flow who were more likely before operation to have had a small prostate, low voiding pressures, and low urethral resistance. In patients in the second group flow rates or voiding pressures improved little after operation. Men with stable detrusors and either low urethral resistance or low voiding pressures were less likely to do well after prostatectomy, but despite these associations preoperative urodynamic measurements were unable to predict outcome accurately. CONCLUSIONS--Prostatectomy was satisfactory in relieving symptoms and improving urodynamic measurements in most men, but even in those with classic symptoms and low urinary flow rates a substantial minority experienced little improvement afterwards and urodynamic measurements did not accurately predict outcome in individual patients.

Full text

PDF
762

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abrams P. H., Farrar D. J., Turner-Warwick R. T., Whiteside C. G., Feneley R. C. The results of prostatectomy: a symptomatic and urodynamic analysis of 152 patients. J Urol. 1979 May;121(5):640–642. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56918-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry M. J., Mulley A. G., Jr, Fowler F. J., Wennberg J. W. Watchful waiting vs immediate transurethral resection for symptomatic prostatism. The importance of patients' preferences. JAMA. 1988 May 27;259(20):3010–3017. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates P., Bradley W. E., Glen E., Griffiths D., Melchior H., Rowan D., Sterling A., Zinner N., Hald T. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function. J Urol. 1979 May;121(5):551–554. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56874-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bruskewitz R., Jensen K. M., Iversen P., Madsen P. O. The relevance of minimum urethral resistance in prostatism. J Urol. 1983 Apr;129(4):769–771. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)52351-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chilton C. P., Morgan R. J., England H. R., Paris A. M., Blandy J. P. A critical evaluation of the results of transurethral resection of the prostate. Br J Urol. 1978 Dec;50(7):542–546. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1978.tb06208.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cote R. J., Burke H., Schoenberg H. W. Prediction of unusual postoperative results by urodynamic testing in benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 1981 May;125(5):690–692. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)55164-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dørflinger T., England D. M., Madsen P. O., Bruskewitz R. C. Urodynamic and histological correlates of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 1988 Dec;140(6):1487–1490. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42081-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dørflinger T., Frimodt-Møller P. C., Bruskewitz R. C., Jensen K. M., Iversen P., Madsen P. O. The significance of uninhibited detrusor contractions in prostatism. J Urol. 1985 May;133(5):819–821. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)49240-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fitzpatrick J. M., Gardiner R. A., Worth P. H. The evaluation of 68 patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence. Br J Urol. 1979 Dec;51(6):552–555. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1979.tb03600.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Frimodt-Møller P. C., Jensen K. M., Iversen P., Madsen P. O., Bruskewitz R. C. Analysis of presenting symptoms in prostatism. J Urol. 1984 Aug;132(2):272–276. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)49587-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gerstenberg T. C., Andersen J. T., Klarskov P., Ramirez D., Hald T. High flow infravesical obstruction in men: symptomatology, urodynamics and the results of surgery. J Urol. 1982 May;127(5):943–945. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)54140-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Glynn R. J., Campion E. W., Bouchard G. R., Silbert J. E. The development of benign prostatic hyperplasia among volunteers in the Normative Aging Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Jan;121(1):78–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Iversen P., Bruskewitz R. C., Jensen K. M., Madsen P. O. Transurethral prostatic resection in the treatment of prostatism with high urinary flow. J Urol. 1983 May;129(5):995–997. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)52505-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lytton B., Emery J. M., Harvard B. M. The incidence of benign prostatic obstruction. J Urol. 1968 May;99(5):639–645. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)62763-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Miyazaki Y., Yamaguchi A., Hara S. The value of transrectal ultrasonography in preoperative assessment for transurethral prostatectomy. J Urol. 1983 Jan;129(1):48–50. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)51914-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Walz P. H., Wenderoth U., Jacobi G. H. Suprapubic transvesical sonography of the prostate: determination of prostate size. Eur Urol. 1983;9(3):148–152. doi: 10.1159/000474070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Warwick R. T., Whiteside C. G., Arnold E. P., Bates C. P., Worth P. H., Milroy E. G., Webster J. R., Weir J. A urodynamic view of prostatic obstruction and the results of prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 1973 Dec;45(6):631–645. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1973.tb12234.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wennberg J. E., Roos N., Sola L., Schori A., Jaffe R. Use of claims data systems to evaluate health care outcomes. Mortality and reoperation following prostatectomy. JAMA. 1987 Feb 20;257(7):933–936. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES