2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2011.08.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two-step transurethral surgery of the prostate and permanent implant brachytherapy for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A prior mini TURP did not result in a urinary incontinence rate of 18% as previously reported by Kollmeier et al . The use of a prior mini TURP in LDR brachytherapy has also shown similar low GU toxicity with no urethral necrosis or urinary incontinence reported …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A prior mini TURP did not result in a urinary incontinence rate of 18% as previously reported by Kollmeier et al . The use of a prior mini TURP in LDR brachytherapy has also shown similar low GU toxicity with no urethral necrosis or urinary incontinence reported …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…19,20 A prior mini TURP did not result in a urinary incontinence rate of 18% as previously reported by Kollmeier et al 21 The use of a prior mini TURP in LDR brachytherapy has also shown similar low GU toxicity with no urethral necrosis or urinary incontinence reported. 22,23 The use of HS was also safe with all patients successfully implanted with no postoperative complications reported. In addition, we reported less GI rectal toxicities in patients who underwent HS insertion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…In recent years, some researchers tried to treat these patients with TURP or TUIP before brachytherapy and achieved relatively satisfactory results. 11 However, not all patients who are at 'high-risk' for obstruction need to have a TURP, especially in light of the complication risks. The approach of performing a TURP only in patients who finally develop obstructive symptoms after brachytherapy is more reasonable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1,[7][8][9] Recently, a 2011 French study deemed a 1-step approach in which transurethral resection was performed immediately before brachytherapy "technically feasible but too toxic," resulting in high postbrachytherapy International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and overall poor patient tolerance. 10 Also, Ivanowicz et al 11 published their clinical experience with limited TURP (LTURP) and/or TUIP months (mean, 5.7 months) before brachytherapy to treat patients with LUTS and low-to-intermediate risk PCa and came to the conclusion that the 2-step LTURP and/or TUIP more than 4 months before brachytherapy is a safe and effective treatment strategy for men with LUTS and low-to-intermediate risk PCa. However, not all patients who are at 'high-risk' for obstruction need to have a TURP, especially in light of the complication risks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Urinary obstruction may be anatomical in nature, such as bladder neck dyssynergia, urethral strictures or prominent obstructing median lobes. If medical therapy with α‐blockers or 5‐α‐reductase inhibitors fail to improve the flow rate, then a pre‐emptive transurethral incision of prostate or limited TURP can be safely performed in these patients to improve urinary flow before brachytherapy to reduce the risk of urinary retention .…”
Section: Absolute and Relative Contraindicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%