It was reported to boston scientific via an article published in journal of sexual medicine that a prospective study was conducted to evaluate a prostatic block in a cohort of patients receiving a water vapor therapy procedure, in improving short term exacerbation of lower urinary tract dysfunction (luts).A total of 93 patients who underwent a water vapor therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (bph) in a single surgeon retrospective study was evaluated.All patients underwent a prostatic block, patient reported outcomes and complication rates were reviewed.Patients were selected to receive the therapy if prostate size was less than <110 grams, international prostate symptom score (ipps) score >15, and a desire for a minimally invasive luts treatment.Patients were given a post op course of antibiotics and instructed to take tylenol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsaids) as needed.Post-procedure patients were sent home with a foley catheter for 48 hours.Patients were given a prostatic block consisting of 5 cc of 0.5% lidocaine and 5cc of 0.5% bupivicaine.The patients received transrectal ultrasound guided 2 cc injections, 2 cc by the bladder neck and sphincter, 2cc midline by the prostate and seminal vesicle junction, 2 cc by each prostatic capsule, and 2 cc by the prostatic midline septum.Mild exacerbation of luts or dysuria was reported in 9% (9/93) of patients.No patients reported luts exacerbation < 36 hours post procedure.No patients required post-op narcotics, pyridium or any anticholinergic.Two patients required replacement of foley catheter, one patient developed retention 1-week post-op and one patient developed a febrile urinary tract infection (uti).The prostatic block provided long-acting prostatic anesthesia, that reduced post-procedure discomfort.This was likely due to slow acclimation to the catheter placement while still having effective local anesthetic at the bladder neck and sphincter.
|
There was no device available for analysis; therefore, no physical or visual analysis of the product could be performed.The reported patient symptoms are a known risk associated with implant of these devices as indicated in the instructions for use.Based on the information available, a conclusion code of known inherent risk of device was assigned to this investigation.
|