Acute retention of urine (AUR) is a common urological emergency characterised by a sudden inability to pass urine associated with lower abdominal pain. In recent years, the natural history and incidence of AUR has become better understood, however, further research into methods to prevent it and evaluation of the impact an episode of AUR has on the patient is required. This review provides an overview of the current management of AUR in men and the impact of the condition on patients' quality of life.

The overall continence rate in female patients after insertion of an artificial urinary sphincter is satisfactory. A satisfactory outcome was achieved in terms of stress incontinence and we would recommend an artificial urinary sphincter after an adequate anti-stress incontinence operation fails. Continence in patients with neuropathic bladder dysfunction is excellent and the artificial urinary sphincter should be considered first line treatment in this group, although the risk of revision surgery is high. Pelvic irradiation is a contraindication to the artificial urinary sphincter in female patients.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of admission for acute urinary retention (AUR) on patients’ health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with that on admission for elective surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and emergency admission for renal colic (RC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Over a 2‐year period, three groups of men were recruited from one institution: group 1, men aged >50 years presenting to the accident and emergency (A&E) department with AUR; group 2, for comparison, men aged >50 years admitted for elective surgery for BPH; and group 3, men aged >40 years presenting to A&E with RC. A self‐completed HRQoL questionnaire was administered at five visits (72 h from admission, and 1, 2, 3 and 6 months afterward) over a 6‐month follow‐up. RESULTS Group 1 reported mean pain scores on admission of 7.7, compared with 5.6 for group 2 and 8.3 for group 3. Patients in group 1 had the most investigations and recurrent attendance to A&E throughout the study, compared with almost none for the other two groups. There was a substantial economic burden for group 1; 15% had extra help at home at a mean cost of £403 for the duration of the study. For the other domains assessed (e.g. emotions, mental state, general health) groups 1 and 2 were similar. CONCLUSIONS An episode of AUR has a measurable impact on patients’ HRQoL, which often occurs in the community and therefore may not be appreciated by the urology team providing their care. Further work is therefore required to improve the ‘patient journey’ for those with AUR, and to prevent patients developing AUR in the future.