UK National Bladder Outflow Obstruction Surgery Snapshot Audit

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
JJ Aning ◽  
RC Calvert ◽  
C Harding ◽  
S Fowler ◽  
T Nitkunan ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
AG Papatsoris ◽  
T El-Husseiny ◽  
Y Sawada ◽  
T Takahashi ◽  
A Nagaoka ◽  
...  

KYAMC Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-26
Author(s):  
Ashraf Uddin Mallik

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/kyamcj.v1i1.13303KYAMC Journal Vol.1(1) July 2010, 24-26


2004 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 46-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Calleja ◽  
R. Yassari ◽  
E.P. Wilkinson ◽  
R. Webb

1989 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. WORSEY ◽  
N. M. GOBLE ◽  
M. STOTT ◽  
P. J. B. SMITH

Author(s):  
Christopher R. Chapple ◽  
Altaf Mangera

Bladder outflow obstruction (BOO) may occur due to several underlying causes in both men and women. It is not possible to diagnose bladder outlet obstruction on a history alone. It can be suspected based on the use of a flow rate but can only be diagnosed using pressure flow urodynamics. In this chapter, we discuss the aetiology, pathophysiology, and investigation of BOO. We emphasize the importance of a complete history, examination, and investigations with investigations such as flow rate and voiding cystometry, in addition to standard tests including urinalysis and a bladder diary. The management of the underlying disorder responsible for the BOO symptoms is discussed in the relevant chapters separately.


2020 ◽  
pp. 205141582096403
Author(s):  
Angela Kit Ying Lam ◽  
Kathie Wong ◽  
Tharani Nitkunan

Objectives: This study aimed to audit the waiting times for a transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) at our institution, and to evaluate the extent of catheter-associated morbidity in this population. Methods: This was a retrospective closed-loop audit, with cycle one between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 and cycle two between 1 October 2019 and 29 February 2020. Data collected included patient demographics, catheter status, catheter-associated presentations to accident and emergency (A&E), admissions and waiting times for TURP. The waiting-list form now has a catheter box, and a goal of 30 days from waitlisting to operation was set for those catheterised. Results: In cycle 1, 36% of the 181 patients were catheterised, and waited a median of 119 days (interquartile range (IQR) 59–163 days) for their TURP, while those not catheterised waited a median of 118 days (IQR 57.75–188.25 days). Catheterised patients presented to A&E 93 times, resulting in 13 admissions, compared to two presentations and zero admissions for those not catheterised. The median time from catheter insertion to first A&E attendance was 20 days (IQR 2–101 days). In cycle 2, 33% of the 55 patients were catheterised, with the median waiting-list time falling to 32 days (IQR 22–46 days) in those catheterised and 33 days (IQR 20–49 days) in those not catheterised. All 11 A&E attendances were from catheterised patients, with no admissions. The median time from insertion to first A&E attendance was nine days (IQR 4–40 days). Eighty-eight per cent of the waiting-list forms had appropriately ticked the catheter box. Conclusion: Our study shows that catheterised patients awaiting a TURP are more likely to have complications necessitating A&E attendance. Prioritisation of these patients on the waiting list for bladder outflow obstruction surgery may help to reduce catheter-associated morbidity. Level of evidence: Level 2c.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document