Citations

Background and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

Objectives To evaluate short‐term outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate ( HoLEP ) and photoselective vaporisation of the prostate ( PVP ) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and chronic urinary retention ( CUR ). Patients and Methods A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients with CUR who underwent HoLEP or PVP at our institution over a 3‐year period. CUR was defined as a persistent post‐void residual urine volume ( PVR ) of >300 mL or refractory urinary retention requiring catheterisation. Results We identified 72 patients with CUR who underwent HoLEP and 31 who underwent PVP . Preoperative parameters including median catheterisation duration (3 vs 5 months, P = 0.71), American Urological Association Symptom Index score ( AUASI ; 18 vs 21, P = 0.24), and PVR (555 vs 473 mL, P = 0.096) were similar between the HoLEP and PVP groups. The HoLEP group had a larger prostate volume (88.5 vs 49 mL, P < 0.001) and higher PSA concentration (4.5 vs 2.4 ng/mL, P = 0.001). At median 6‐month follow‐up, 71 (99%) HoLEP patients and 23 (74%) PVP patients were catheter‐free ( P < 0.001). Of the voiding patients, postoperative AUASI (3 vs 4, P = 0.06), maximum urinary flow rate (23 vs 18 mL/s, P = 0.28) and PVR (56.5 vs 54 mL, P = 1.0) were improved in both groups. Conclusions Both HoLEP and PVP are effective at improving urinary parameters in men with CUR . Despite larger prostate volumes, HoLEP had a 99% successful deobstruction rate, thus rendering patients catheter‐free.

SAGE-Journals-Accessible-Video-Player 10.1089/vid.2010.0114.M1 sj-vid-1-vid-10.1089_vid.2010.0114