|
| Just for clarification, the "R" in "TURP" usually stands for "resection",
but I don't doubt the word "reduction" is also used loosely.
I had a TURP last April and it just exacerbated my prostatitis, and didn't
help. Now I know I have prostatitis, urethritis and cystitis (its all
related - there ain't no doubt in my mind). I don't know what to do. Antis
don't help, and there are no more uro's where I live (there all in one
office which is a factory), and I don't have anyone to help me.
Take care...Pete
Spread_deMocracy wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Burford... I'd strongly suggest you get yourself back to the
> urologist or select a different one for a second opinion.
>
> Pete did a good job in clearing up my comments. So, I will build on
> Pete's posting a wee bit more. Before I do there is one additional
> thought that was not in my original response to you...if you waited
> too long to have the operation you may have some bladder wall
> contraction issues. If the urologist concludes that is the case, then
> you may need to use a catheter for a very long period to let the
> walls come back to nearly their original elasticity. But read on. I
> have more to say associated to my original post.
>
> Certainly there is some prostate tissue that is broken down during a
> PVP. Indeed, I pissed out chunks of tissue, some from urethra and
> some from prostate, just like other PVP patients. That was not the
> point I was making. The "R" in TURP stands for "Reduction", and my
> urologist was clear to point out that the SIZE of my prostate was
> little affected since the PVP is not intended to be a 'Reduction
> Procedure"...and he clearly stated the procedure was more like
> burning a channel through, not grinding down or reducing the size of
> the prostate. As Pete points out, a PVP must have cut done some of
> the urethra and prostate...and for me it was certain that it did. The
> point I tried to make, though, is a PVP is sufficient and highly
> effective for many prostates, but not all since a PVP is going to do
> less to the Prostate than a TURP does. And, if you read about the
> prostate, you will discover that the Prostate is more like a moldable
> lump of clay than a solid structure like a chestnut, though it is
> typically compared to the size of a chestnut. The moldability is not
> something that is discussed on this NG so I thought I would raise
> that as well. Yours may have flowed more than some others? Regardless,
> the formability, moldability, does add a further
> complication to the surgeon. But for whatever reason, it appears
> that your procedure was insufficient. This newsgroup will not be
> able to answer why, for your particular case. It could be that your
> sugeon was not skilled enough, the PVP may not have removed
> SUFFICIENT Prostate tissue, or your prostate flowed back somewhat...
> and maybe other reasons. In your case you may need a better
> urologist; another PVP; the more aggressive TURP, (reduction
> procedure); or, there is something more important going on that needs
> to be tended to right away. Nonetheless, your follow-up Cystoscopy
> will tell most of the story or you may need a biopsy. If they find
> that the PVP was not successful, maybe they need to try again. Or,
> they may conclude that PVPs or TURPS won't work for you. Or, there
> is something uglier going on. But don't wait any longer...GO GET
> A SECOND OPINION, RIGHT NOW!!!...or at least get your original
> urologist to look inside, (Cytoscopy), RIGHT NOW, and see what the
> heck is going on in there... Here's wishing you well.
> "Buford R via MedKB.com" <u5432@uwe> wrote in message
> news:56a462dbb79f9@uwe...
|
|