BPH Procedures
Posted , 8 users are following.
Having suffered nocturnal wetting have been diagnosed with very large bladder that has water retention. Told this retention is affecting a kidney. I pee OK, good stream and usually 200+cc. In daytime probably every 4-5 hours which is not exceptional for me. I feel OK, no pain and am physically fit. Uro's ( 3) all recommend slightly different procedures. Have dismissed TURP as that is regarded as being somewhat barbaric. Looked at Urolift but seems clips can be a problem and the procedure only lasts for 5-7 years. Am considering HoLep which seems less troublesome than the procedures stated.
There may be other procedures but have not considered.
Apart from the Nocturnal wetting am able to live with it but do wonder if I should undertake a procedure ( Private). I cannot get any advice opinion from my NHS GP which is most frustrating.
I would like to hear of others experiences and opinions. Thank you in advance.
0 likes, 12 replies
tll68856 andrew57992
Posted
The two most non-invasive procedures on the market now or PAE which is for large prostates the other is ITIND procedure.
michael31017 andrew57992
Edited
I was going to argue that TURP isn't really "barbaric" in that it's just an old school way to remove tissue that is blocking the flow of urine from the bladder, and that the other procedures remove the same tissue although using other technologies, but as I remembered the blood, the anemia, the lack of information, vomiting on the side of the road on the way home from the hospital, foley removal, etc, I agree with you....
alberto204 andrew57992
Edited
Focal Laser Ablation seems like it might not be as barbarically destructive as some of the other procedures out there.
I'm still dragging my feet and reading as much as I can. This site has been very helpful because you get hear the truth from real patients.
richp21 alberto204
Posted
Do you have more info about FLA? Last I heard, it was nor covered by Medicare, and only done by maybe 2 doctors in the US.
alberto204 richp21
Edited
There are a couple/few on this site who had it done.
Insurance doe NOT cover it. I was quoted $23,000 but after reading a few posts of the angst some have suffered from other modalities it might be worth tapping an IRA.
richp21 alberto204
Posted
I was quoted 23K also. Has anyone on the forum gone this route and posted a report? I spoke with Dr K a few times 5 years ago when he was in the midst of doing a small study on FLA outcomes. I haven't seen the results of the study. He's a lovely man, very helpful even when I made it clear that I was most likely going to have a PAE. BTW, I did have the PAE, it was moderately helpful, but 5 years later the symptoms have slowly returned.
compiler andrew57992
Edited
Pee 200 cc every 4-5 hours is not very bad. You can stop intake after dinner. What is your prostate size?
andrew57992 compiler
Posted
One Uro say 30mm another say 35. Am trying to gather as much info as poss as once done cannot be undone. Uro wanted to do Holep on 16th ( 6 days time) I have declined until New Year in the hope better info will be forthcoming. It is not that I have difficulty peeing just the involuntary occassions and being told retention could be damaging kidney. Am not convinced a "re-bore" will solve the problem but am open to persausion from those who have had a similar experience. I get the feeling Uro's act commercially as a Private Patient am getting constant invites,
cali-mike1970 andrew57992
Posted
maybe look into aquablation? it may be a bit less barbaric than the turp in that it is more precise, removes alot of user error, does not use heat like a turp which can damage surrounding tissues a bit more (likely a bit better for avoiding bladder neck contracture than the TURP). if going through the pee hole is what is barbaric then it's still an issue, and I'd say it's the modern day TURP. I think the "barbaric" word was coined by the FLA guys and i'd say that's good marketing. i changed my framing around it in my mind and feel like aquablation is a game changer. my uro says he never has to even prescribe pain killers -just tylenol and ibuprofen work for most. FLA requires 7 to 2 months of catheter after the procedure for BPH (i talked to those guys). that is just as barbaric as aquablation given there's only 1 to 3 days of catheter and most report that's the worst part.
andrew57992 cali-mike1970
Posted
Took the term barbaric from the profile of a Uro I have seen. He prefers Holep. I have done enquiries on TURP and it would appear somewhat more invasive than more modern techniques and so out of the frame for me. Am very pain tolerant but once a procedure is done it cannot be undone. The Holep Uro says there is a 89% chance of improvement and 1/200--1/500 chance the op will kill me. Until this health event have been fit and healthy all my life. I am going to investigate both Aquablation and Itind procedure. Because kidney function maybe compromised am finding it extremely difficult to obtain sound medical information on the consequential outcome should I delay an op. I feel fine presently except the nocturnal involuntary leakage, and am minded to wait. Am I wise or not??
Thanks for you input, it's very helpful.
alberto204 cali-mike1970
Posted
cali-mike1970 where in the world did you hear of "7 to 2 months of catheter after the procedure" for FLA? I've been quoted 7-10 DAYS.
cali-mike1970 alberto204
Posted
yes 7 to 10 is mostly the case, one of the admins at the front desk mentioned the longer time. when i asked the doc about it on the 1 on 1, he said that wasn't right so i should correct that now that you mention it.