Had TURP 2 years ago
Posted , 8 users are following.
Had TURP two years ago, recovery took about three months. Everything including sex was good till a couple of months ago. Started with having trouble peeing at times and getting up more at night (AGAIN). Doctor put me back on Tamsulosin and I can pee again getting up only once a night and feel like I do empty my bladder. Sex is just OK but coming up dry just like the first go round with this drug. All this feels like da-ja-vu. This entire situation has me pretty confused. In time I will be exploring what options there are. I don't want to go under the knife again. I'm 71 yrs old, at least with this drug for now I can pee.
0 likes, 18 replies
Waffalobill joe04598
Posted
oldbuzzard joe04598
Posted
joe04598 oldbuzzard
Posted
I have a 90 day supply of the Tamsulosin, when it's time for a refill I will ask about Alfusozin. Not in any hurry for another TURP go round and will inquire about other procedures that are mentioned on this forum. As long as meds are working I'll stick with them. Before the TURP surgery I had been on Tamsulosin and Finasteride for a couple of years. I hope I can go at least another year or more without another procedure. Also before I had the TURP procedure my PSA was 14. They did a 12 point biopsy, no cancer at that time.
oldbuzzard joe04598
Posted
derek76 oldbuzzard
Posted
Supertractorman joe04598
Posted
oldbuzzard Supertractorman
Posted
I would reconsider having your prostate removed. You may well go from not being able to pee to not being able to not pee. Prostate removal has a way too high incidence of incontinence to be worth the risk for simple BPH. And I don't know if its important to you, but say good bye to sex forever if you do it.
You are a perfect candidate for FLA, which was developed to treat smaller prostate cancers and they found it relieved BPH symptoms at the same time. Your cancer probably will never harm you, but if you want it out, FLA is a much better way to go IMO.
Supertractorman oldbuzzard
Posted
There are a number of reasons why I want it removed, Prostatitis, Urine infections that are becoming impossible to find A/B's for ( 56 Days last year going to Hospital for IV's), Months of self cathing and Foleys, Weeks of Hospital stays including Dec & Jan for my TURP two years ago, Not wanting another TURP or Biopsy as had Sepsis last time involving High Dependency unit and an hour from death as everything shut down, and lastly my static Cancer.
Something I have just learned from a Urology Specialist Nurse is that they believe some Incontinence and E/D stemming from a TURP may be from Spinal Anaesthetics touching nerves in the spine, and not all down to the procedure. Further research is being done.
john568 joe04598
Posted
derek76 john568
Posted
I had GL in 2004 at Newcastle and it went well for my 75 grm prostate. When it regrew to 135grms I had Thulium/Holmium laser that is similar to HoLep in that it saves tissue for histology.
You can go to the NICE website and check on all the options available.
This is an extract from their initial Urolift conclusions.
In 2019 NICE is due to commence the review of this guidance.
NICE has developed medical technology guidance on the UroLift system.
NICE medical technologies guidance addresses specific technologies notified to NICE by companies. The ‘case for adoption’ recommendations are based on the claimed advantages of introducing the specific technology compared with current management of the condition. This ‘case’ is reviewed against the evidence submitted and expert advice. If the case for adopting the technology is supported, then the technology has been found to offer advantages to patients and the NHS. The specific recommendations on individual technologies are not intended to limit use of other relevant technologies which may offer similar advantages.
NICE has said that the UroLift system relieves lower urinary tract symptoms while avoiding the risk to sexual function associated with surgical options. Using the system reduces the length of a person’s stay in hospital. It can also be used in a day surgery unit.
The UroLift system should be considered as an alternative to current surgical procedures for men aged 50 years and older with lower urinary tract symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia, who have a prostate of less than 100 ml without an obstructing middle lobe.
dennis47445 john568
Posted
John, the first time I had surgery, was the greenlight laser. I was around 55 years old. It worked for around 2 years, and the prostate grew back and so I had the turp done. after several years, the prostate grew back and so I had a second turp done. At present I am doing CIC. It's the best thing of the greenlight and turp. My bladder empties out completely and I don'thave to take anykind of medication. I read all kinds of reports how medication, with its side-effects, can be harmful to the body. Good luck with your choice of surgery.
derek76 dennis47445
Posted
steven07153 derek76
Posted
I am 70 years old and had urolyft procedure about 2 1/2 years ago. It was relatively new at the time and there was a paucity of literature. Subsequently I spoke to my urologist (Kaiser, San Diego, Ca.) who, on request, provided me with a journal article that,based upon Canadian studies, the procedure had an 80+% improval and maintained that level over three years. (That was the length of time the study implicated. I posted to this group the citation to the Journal so you may be able to find it under my posting. My procedure resulted in my release from the hospital on the same date as the surgery but I had a catheter, which I hate because it causes me great pain. Once the catheter was removed it was about a week before I was feeling up to speed. Subsequently I've noticed some return of ejaculate (which from 15 years of meds and prostate enlargement had dried up completely) and a substantially better flow, both starting and continuing once started. I'd prefer this procedure over TURP or any other direct prostate surgery given the possible sexual side effects. I was diagnosed with BPH (had evidence of bladder cancer which was removed 25+ years ago which was discovered during a cystoscopic procedure -no return).
john568 steven07153
Posted
dennis47445 derek76
Posted
john568 derek76
Posted