|
Home > Archive > Prostate > November 2004 > Post PVP Prostate Irritation
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Post PVP Prostate Irritation
|
|
| Nelson 2004-11-04, 7:08 am |
| Talked to a new Urologist today (my current one refuses to even
consider PVP as an option). He said that he has experienced cases
where there was prostate "irritation" after PVP that lasted for up to
six months. He theorized that it was caused by tissue reaction to the
laser light (sunburn?). He also said that LaserScope is also concerned
about reports of this and has been around with a survey and asking
questions.
I offer this as a FYI, not to re-ignite the "LaserScope are lying
bastards" thread. If I have to, and it looks like I will, I will still
elect a PVP over a TURP because of the better odds against short and
long term complications. Neither is risk free and if I had my
'druthers, I'd rather not have either :-)
--
Nelson
| |
|
| none in my experience. if you would rather not, then you probably do not
have very severe symptoms. you will eventually be happy to get back
youthful streams of
urine, 4 to 6 hours of retention, and no serious urgencies. this is what i
enjoy now after pvp.
"Nelson" <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BDAF8768001F0F9AF04075B0@news-60.giganews.com...
> Talked to a new Urologist today (my current one refuses to even
> consider PVP as an option). He said that he has experienced cases
> where there was prostate "irritation" after PVP that lasted for up to
> six months. He theorized that it was caused by tissue reaction to the
> laser light (sunburn?). He also said that LaserScope is also concerned
> about reports of this and has been around with a survey and asking
> questions.
>
> I offer this as a FYI, not to re-ignite the "LaserScope are lying
> bastards" thread. If I have to, and it looks like I will, I will still
> elect a PVP over a TURP because of the better odds against short and
> long term complications. Neither is risk free and if I had my
> 'druthers, I'd rather not have either :-)
>
> --
> Nelson
>
| |
| Nelson 2004-11-06, 7:07 am |
| On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:06:23 -0500, joggernut@highstream.net wrote
(in article <10ontuichjv1je2@corp.supernews.com> ):
> none in my experience. if you would rather not, then you probably
> do not have very severe symptoms. you will eventually be happy to
> get back youthful streams of urine, 4 to 6 hours of retention, and
> no serious urgencies. this is what i enjoy now after pvp.
If that were assured, who wouldn't elect PVP? :-)
I'm just not eager to roll the dice with impotence, retrograde
ejaculation, and incontinence.
--
Nelson
| |
|
| Nelson,
You don't get impotence from PVP. And if there is any type of incontinence,
it's rare and very temporary for those who might have an incident or two.
Retrograde is a valid concern that you should ask your surgeon about.
I got it from my 2nd PVP about 11 months ago.
Ron
> From: Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.med.prostate.bph
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 06:57:37 -0500
> Subject: Re: Post PVP Prostate Irritation
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:06:23 -0500, joggernut@highstream.net wrote
> (in article <10ontuichjv1je2@corp.supernews.com> ):
>
>
> If that were assured, who wouldn't elect PVP? :-)
>
> I'm just not eager to roll the dice with impotence, retrograde
> ejaculation, and incontinence.
>
> --
> Nelson
>
| |
| Nelson 2004-11-07, 7:11 pm |
| On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:23:18 -0500, Ron wrote
(in article <BDB3B626.5B50D%ron1@rcn.com> ):
> Nelson,
> You don't get impotence from PVP. And if there is any type of incontinence,
> it's rare and very temporary for those who might have an incident or two.
> Retrograde is a valid concern that you should ask your surgeon about.
> I got it from my 2nd PVP about 11 months ago.
> Ron
Thanks for the reassurance, Ron, but I'm not so sanguine. Rob Marks
posted the following back in July (you can look up the whole thread on
Google):
> The TURP statistics I cited emanate from two sources. The first is
> from a free booklet entitled "Treating Your Enlarded Prostate,"
> published and distributed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
> Services, AHCPR Publication No. 94-0584. On pages 20-21 it lists
> "Chance of experiencing inability to get an erection (impotence) as a
> result of treatment: 3% to 35%; Chance of uncontrollable urinary
> leakage as a result of treatment: .7% to 1.4%; Chance of dying within
> three months after treatment: .5% to 3.3%."
>
> Another source is "The Prostate Report," by Phillips Publishing, Inc.,
> Potomac, Maryland, which quotes data attributed to Dr. John Wennberg
> of the Dartmouth Medical School as follows: "the death rate is as
> high as 1.3% (one death per 56 procedures; 8% of the men having the
> procedure have complications requiring hopitalization within three
> months, and 5% of them develop impotence. Also, 20% of all men need
> to repeat the procedure within eight years. Other reports show that
> for 15% of TURP patients symptoms can return in about a year and 4% of
> the patients suffer from incontinence."
>
> These data have been around for some time as has the TURP. The
> numbers vary slightly depending on whose data you examine, but the
> amount of variation is minor.
>
> It appears that most urologists do not volunteer this information to
> prospective surgery candidates.
I realize that these statistics are for TURP and not PVP and that PVP
has probably not been around long enough to gather meaningful
comparable statistics. However, it does not seem too much of a leap to
consider PVP as a TURP done with a laser rather than a heated wire...
at the end of the procedure, the same tissue is gone. I can't come up
with a rationale that would cause me to expect that the long term
statistics would be any different. If you can, I would be glad to hear
it :-)
BTW, I _can_ believe the odds against dying are better :-) The laser
surgery cauterizes the tissue better and therefore can be expected to
result in less infections, hemorrhaging, etc.
--
Nelson
>
>
| |
|
| Nelson,
I have not heard of 1 case of impotence being caused by PVP. I've been a
long time reader of this newsgroup, and other internet sites, and read
research articles. If Patrick is reading, he can throw in his 2 cents.
Ron
> From: Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.med.prostate.bph
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:23:51 -0500
> Subject: Re: Post PVP Prostate Irritation
>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:23:18 -0500, Ron wrote
> (in article <BDB3B626.5B50D%ron1@rcn.com> ):
>
>
> Thanks for the reassurance, Ron, but I'm not so sanguine. Rob Marks
> posted the following back in July (you can look up the whole thread on
> Google):
>
>
> I realize that these statistics are for TURP and not PVP and that PVP
> has probably not been around long enough to gather meaningful
> comparable statistics. However, it does not seem too much of a leap to
> consider PVP as a TURP done with a laser rather than a heated wire...
> at the end of the procedure, the same tissue is gone. I can't come up
> with a rationale that would cause me to expect that the long term
> statistics would be any different. If you can, I would be glad to hear
> it :-)
>
> BTW, I _can_ believe the odds against dying are better :-) The laser
> surgery cauterizes the tissue better and therefore can be expected to
> result in less infections, hemorrhaging, etc.
>
> --
> Nelson
>
>
| |
| Nelson 2004-11-08, 7:08 am |
| On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:05:26 -0500, Ron wrote
(in article <BDB40656.5B830%ron1@rcn.com> ):
> Nelson,
> I have not heard of 1 case of impotence being caused by PVP. I've been a
> long time reader of this newsgroup, and other internet sites, and read
> research articles. If Patrick is reading, he can throw in his 2 cents.
> Ron
I would take no pleasure in being the first to report it ;-)
--
Nelson
| |
|
| Nelson,
This is a good question to ask Laserscope directly, give them a call.
There are were no cases in the published results (146 men) but Laserscope
should know if there were any cases in the over 40,000 procedures performed
to date.
Patrick
"Ron" <ron1@rcn.com> wrote in message news:BDB40656.5B830%ron1@rcn.com...
> Nelson,
> I have not heard of 1 case of impotence being caused by PVP. I've been a
> long time reader of this newsgroup, and other internet sites, and read
> research articles. If Patrick is reading, he can throw in his 2 cents.
> Ron
>
>
>
| |
|
| Nelson,
You don't get impotence from PVP. And if there is any type of incontinence,
it's rare and very temporary for those who might have an incident or two.
Retrograde is a valid concern that you should ask your surgeon about.
I got it from my 2nd PVP about 11 months ago.
Ron
> From: Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.med.prostate.bph
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 06:57:37 -0500
> Subject: Re: Post PVP Prostate Irritation
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:06:23 -0500, joggernut@highstream.net wrote
> (in article <10ontuichjv1je2@corp.supernews.com> ):
>
>
> If that were assured, who wouldn't elect PVP? :-)
>
> I'm just not eager to roll the dice with impotence, retrograde
> ejaculation, and incontinence.
>
> --
> Nelson
>
| |
| Nelson 2004-11-10, 2:13 am |
| On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:23:18 -0500, Ron wrote
(in article <BDB3B626.5B50D%ron1@rcn.com> ):
> Nelson,
> You don't get impotence from PVP. And if there is any type of incontinence,
> it's rare and very temporary for those who might have an incident or two.
> Retrograde is a valid concern that you should ask your surgeon about.
> I got it from my 2nd PVP about 11 months ago.
> Ron
Thanks for the reassurance, Ron, but I'm not so sanguine. Rob Marks
posted the following back in July (you can look up the whole thread on
Google):
> The TURP statistics I cited emanate from two sources. The first is
> from a free booklet entitled "Treating Your Enlarded Prostate,"
> published and distributed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
> Services, AHCPR Publication No. 94-0584. On pages 20-21 it lists
> "Chance of experiencing inability to get an erection (impotence) as a
> result of treatment: 3% to 35%; Chance of uncontrollable urinary
> leakage as a result of treatment: .7% to 1.4%; Chance of dying within
> three months after treatment: .5% to 3.3%."
>
> Another source is "The Prostate Report," by Phillips Publishing, Inc.,
> Potomac, Maryland, which quotes data attributed to Dr. John Wennberg
> of the Dartmouth Medical School as follows: "the death rate is as
> high as 1.3% (one death per 56 procedures; 8% of the men having the
> procedure have complications requiring hopitalization within three
> months, and 5% of them develop impotence. Also, 20% of all men need
> to repeat the procedure within eight years. Other reports show that
> for 15% of TURP patients symptoms can return in about a year and 4% of
> the patients suffer from incontinence."
>
> These data have been around for some time as has the TURP. The
> numbers vary slightly depending on whose data you examine, but the
> amount of variation is minor.
>
> It appears that most urologists do not volunteer this information to
> prospective surgery candidates.
I realize that these statistics are for TURP and not PVP and that PVP
has probably not been around long enough to gather meaningful
comparable statistics. However, it does not seem too much of a leap to
consider PVP as a TURP done with a laser rather than a heated wire...
at the end of the procedure, the same tissue is gone. I can't come up
with a rationale that would cause me to expect that the long term
statistics would be any different. If you can, I would be glad to hear
it :-)
BTW, I _can_ believe the odds against dying are better :-) The laser
surgery cauterizes the tissue better and therefore can be expected to
result in less infections, hemorrhaging, etc.
--
Nelson
>
>
| |
|
| Nelson,
I have not heard of 1 case of impotence being caused by PVP. I've been a
long time reader of this newsgroup, and other internet sites, and read
research articles. If Patrick is reading, he can throw in his 2 cents.
Ron
> From: Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.med.prostate.bph
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:23:51 -0500
> Subject: Re: Post PVP Prostate Irritation
>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:23:18 -0500, Ron wrote
> (in article <BDB3B626.5B50D%ron1@rcn.com> ):
>
>
> Thanks for the reassurance, Ron, but I'm not so sanguine. Rob Marks
> posted the following back in July (you can look up the whole thread on
> Google):
>
>
> I realize that these statistics are for TURP and not PVP and that PVP
> has probably not been around long enough to gather meaningful
> comparable statistics. However, it does not seem too much of a leap to
> consider PVP as a TURP done with a laser rather than a heated wire...
> at the end of the procedure, the same tissue is gone. I can't come up
> with a rationale that would cause me to expect that the long term
> statistics would be any different. If you can, I would be glad to hear
> it :-)
>
> BTW, I _can_ believe the odds against dying are better :-) The laser
> surgery cauterizes the tissue better and therefore can be expected to
> result in less infections, hemorrhaging, etc.
>
> --
> Nelson
>
>
| |
| Nelson 2004-11-10, 2:13 am |
| On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:06:23 -0500, joggernut@highstream.net wrote
(in article <10ontuichjv1je2@corp.supernews.com> ):
> none in my experience. if you would rather not, then you probably
> do not have very severe symptoms. you will eventually be happy to
> get back youthful streams of urine, 4 to 6 hours of retention, and
> no serious urgencies. this is what i enjoy now after pvp.
If that were assured, who wouldn't elect PVP? :-)
I'm just not eager to roll the dice with impotence, retrograde
ejaculation, and incontinence.
--
Nelson
|
| |
|
|