Chronic Retention of Urine - Enlarged Prostate

Hi Mark,

Very sorry to hear of your situation. I sincerely hope that you get better soon.

I am not in the same situation as your good self.  I have a enlarged prostate and may have due to retention, bladder stones?

Kind Regards

Brian 

Hope that you are well and thank you for your reply. My enlarged prostate is due to the bladder cancer. IT looks like the consultant is treating the constant urination and not the cause.

Hi Mark,

I don't know if my history may be of interest. I too had/have bladder cancer (it comes and goes this last 7 years), and had difficulties with peeing - used the tamsolusin. However, no-one ever suggested my prostate troubles were caused by the bladder cancer (tho' it may have been).

I'd been alright, apart from needing the Tamsolusin, up to a year ago when my blood pressure went up fairly quickly. An ultrasound & MRI picked up a ureter oddity (enlarged, feared an obstruction/tumour?); a cystoscopy found high retention (1.2L) which, when drained via a catheter for a few weeks gave improvements (blood pressure & kidney function). I had a laser TURP a few weeks back and my flow is now good; blood pressure not so bad; and my kidney function improved (but still in the danger zone).

Hi ianC

it was over the past couple of years where I have had problems. My consultant has now put me on vesicare to slow down urine output, but it has slowed down the flow. But what I don't understand is why not treat the prostate which will sort out everything else. All that I know is that the prostate is pushing against the bladder, all that I seem to get is UTI's and it is getting annoying.

But hope that you are keeping well now and a big thank you for your feedback.

It often seems to be policy now to treat with drugs. When you next go to outpatients or for a flow test speak to the other patients and they are n the same boat. Ask how they are and the inevitable answer is 'Miserable' 

I know people who have been getting put off and prescribed drugs that give them side effects for over eight years.

One consultant told me that they know more about the prostate now and surgery is not now the first answer. I got very cross and told him that he had been wasting my time for a year. 

Hi derek76

I find the course of action by the hospital seems to be long, tedious and boring as nothing doesn't seem to be happening. I have now been taking a verity of medication and I don't want more if I can help it.

That's the way they want it and it seems to be the same around the country.

When I told the one he had been wasting my time for a year I asked him to refer me to one of the top two urologists doing PVP who was in the next area.

He did but the top man despite my flattery said that he thought that I was coping with my symptoms very well and could hold out a bit longer.  Now if I had gone to him privately??

Any consultant loves to treat private patient's, then you will get the treatment you need and more.

I checked up as to how much the ankle surgery would cost if I was to go private, bare in mind that it is orthopaedic surgery.

NHS would cost £11.000 and

private would cost between £16.000 - £22.000, simply because private care you are paying for the best treatment and for the bed. NHS, you get the basic's, not only that the NHS has to make a profit.

When waiting for my aortic valve replacement things dragged on and with missing paperwork etc so I made a private appointment with a surgeon on December 8th. He said that he was very busy and it would be 5/7 weeks before he could do it and NHS would be 12/13 weeks.

After consideration I thought that six weeks to save £22K was worth the risk. His secretary then phoned to  say that he could do it on December 28th.

I still decided to wait but it dragged on to the end of May before it was done.

 

Hi Mark,

Hope things improve for you Mark.

Take Care

Brian

Same with you brian45986

Presumably 18 weeks also does not apply.

 

Hi Howard,

A depressing reponse from the NHS. The link they gave isn't much help either. The site is very slow and I couldn't find the right statistics. The only data I found was for assessment of hospitals by location. They were scarey, as many had flags against them for poor performance. Many too with red flags from staff who down-rated their own hospitals. It only gives data for England too, as I tried several locations in Wales and Scotland but got zilch. So much for a joined up NHS strategy!

My overall concern has always been "what if the enlarged prostate also included cancer"? The only way to know this is by taking a tissue sample, yet it's always initialy assumed to be a benign condition that can be treated with medication. As my consultant explained, even though you may have tissue samples taken, they may not be from the diseased part of the prostate. So why aren't clinicians erring on the side of caution (for the person) and going for surgery much earlier? How many men who have been treated conservatively (with medication) but are later dscovered to have cancer that is more advanced than it should have been? Such reluctance isn't apparent with women whose symptoms are automatically anticipated to be of a cancerous nature. I wonder if prostate treatment should come under Oncology, where there is a greater sense of urgency and an automatic assumption that an early intervention is paramount for a positive outcome.

Ben

When my BPH was first diagnodsed with a 35 gram prostate in 1995 my PSA was 5.1 and I had a negative biopsy. As my prostate continued to grow as I waited for a better alternative to TURP and TUMP my PSA continued to rise. I had another negative biopsy in 1999 but was never offered another one although I had regular PSA results going up as high as 9.8 prior to having GL PVP in 2005.

Will 12 or 16 needles fired into an orange manage to hit a pip?

 

Hi Ben

I was referred to my urologist as PSA levels had risen from 1.5 to 20.3, After Him giving me a DRE he told me it was chronic prostates and it was not cancer as cancer would not give me pain and that is why they call cancer the silent killer, he said it was pointless to do a biopsy as it could be risky with the chance of causing an infection. He massaged the prostate ( very roughly ) and put me on a course of antibiotics for a month he also arranged for a further blood test for a PSA count in a fortnights time from seeing him I suffered great pain and water retention which led to a foley catheter being inserted one week later, ( before seeing the urologist I had coped for six years with only the 3 trips to the toilet each night and urgency every hour when out ). the meds I was on were Tamsulosin and codeine for the pain which I had maybe twice a week ) it was only the RISE in the PSA levels that got me fast tracked under the two week rule. Any way the PSA levels went up to 30 on the last check, the urologist said the rise was due to the enlarged prostate and not cancer although he did detect a possible growth on the inside part of the prostate he said not to worry as cancer is always on the outer part of the prostate, and he would do a TURP which would core out the inside of the prostate and take any growth with it. But he would put me down for urgent surgery.

( of which I’m still waiting 7 weeks on ) when I ask the Hospital for waiting times I’m told it could be several weeks or an estimated time. Both statements are not a figure. ( if you go back through my posts you will see the emails I had from them.

So here I am with yet another foley in place and no written confirmation of dates.

They say they do not age discriminate ( but in my view they do.  RANT OVER.

Hi, Your consultant seems to have shot himself in the foot by stating that a cancer wouldn't be painful and as you expereince pain it must be BPH. It then follows that if a cancer was embedded in an enlarged (BPH) prostate it would be undiscovered until they eventually carried out surgery to reduce the protate. Only then would they be able to categorically state that cancer was not present. Dubious logic by the consultant, Ben

Seconded!

If cancer is only on the surface why fire biosy needles deep into the prostate.

Hi Again, It's my time to rant!

Another thought is that your consultant (and he appears to be not alone in his attitude) is treating both conditions (BHP/cancer) as separate and cannot be considered as concurrent. How many men who are eventually treated for cancer of the prostate didn't also have BPH, I wonder? I doubt that anyone presents only with cancer. As, if cancer isn't painful, what are the other symptoms? It seems likely that an enlarged prostate triggers the investigations. It would seem to me that anyone who is diagnosed with BPH should automatically also be considered to have a potential cancer, as it is with women with a breast lump for instance. Rant over. Ben

I share your frustration and upset at what happens. But I'd just add that many have a PSA test as they get older (I cannot recall whether this is now standard for the over 65's) or are having trouble peeing. So it could be triggered by that. But I agree that as ageing normally brings with it an enlarged prostate, these things tend to go together.

Hi Howard,

Thanks for digging out this information.  Depressing news for anyone wait for a Turp/GL laser treatment

Kind Regards

Brian