 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate BPH / May 2005Stents?? Why not?
Having already had two TURPs (and probably soon to need a third), I wonder why a solution to BHP is not the use of a stent inserted in the urethra to it keeps the flow stream open. It works for arteries. It is less invasive. Why not? > Having already had two TURPs (and probably soon to need a third), I > wonder why a solution to BHP is not the use of a stent inserted in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why not? It is done in the UK. My late father in law ignored his prostate until it was huge and he had massive retention. He was in his late 80's and not fit enough for a TURP and had a stent fitted. It was sucessful for a time but it became clogged up by encrustation and had to be removed . http://bbriefings.com/pdf/26/ept031_p_dijk&rosette_lr.pdf Derek. >> Having already had two TURPs (and probably soon to need a third), I >> wonder why a solution to BHP is not the use of a stent inserted in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Derek. They had similar problems with artery stents and came up with a solution by coating them. Medical science could probably come up with a material that would not be negatively affected by the'environment of the urethra if there was enough money thrown into the research. It just seems to me to be a vastly better answer than all the other options we now have which are invasive. Steve How would you plant a stent without being invasive? Jim W. >>> Having already had two TURPs (and probably soon to need a third), I >>> wonder why a solution to BHP is not the use of a stent inserted in the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > are invasive. > Steve No more 'invasive' than placing a catheter in the urethra, and basically leaving it there. I guess it's a matter of semantics, but that doesn't seem invasive to me. Mr. B > How would you plant a stent without being invasive? Jim W. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> are invasive. >> Steve & if you make it stiff enough it can solve erection problems as well :) Ron > From: "Mr. B" <nospam99trader@gte.net> > Newsgroups: sci.med.prostate.bph [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>> are invasive. >>> Steve Perhaps the use of the word "invasive" was ill advised. I think this may be a dregree issue. Let me try another tact.... I have had two TURPs. Despite the fact that I really didn't have any pain except for the catheter getting clogged when I was having clots pass..... I think I would be less inconvenienced if a stent were used instead of some cutting instrument or heating instrument or laser instrument. But there was the blood, and the being off my feet and the three or four days in the hospital and the need for a catheter for 2 or 3 days and the anesthesia, and the cutting, and the inability to exercise or play golf for many weeks, etc. IF they could come up with a stent that could survive the environment, and if it was flexible and if it did not interfere with sex, would it not be the better choice for everyone? Steve >No more 'invasive' than placing a catheter in the urethra, and basically >leaving it there. I guess it's a matter of semantics, but that doesn't [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> are invasive. >>> Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.