@Article{,
AUTHOR = {Richard M. Roach},
TITLE = {Treating male retention patients with temporary prostatic stent in a large urology group practice},
JOURNAL = {Canadian Journal of Urology},
VOLUME = {24},
YEAR = {2017},
NUMBER = {2},
PAGES = {8776--8781},
URL = {http://www.techscience.com/CJU/v24n2/60978},
ISSN = {1488-5581},
ABSTRACT = {Men with either chronic or temporary urinary retention 
symptoms are common patients treated in a urology 
practice. Both indwelling and intermittent catheterization 
are widely used to treat this condition. These approaches 
are associated with significant complications including 
infection and reduced quality-of-life. Infection is a target 
for quality improvement and cost reduction strategies in 
most care settings today.<br/>
We use a temporary prostatic stent (TPS) to address 
these issues in our practice. In this report, we describe 
our approach to patient selection, sizing, placement and 
follow up of 214 TPS placed in 56 men with chronic or 
temporary urinary retention in an office setting.<br/>
With the first stent placement, average indwelling time was 27 days. Thirty-two patients had multiple stents placed. 
Replacement was performed routinely and was generally 
required because underlying comorbidities precluded 
surgery. In these patients, an average of six stents were 
placed (range 2-18) with average dwell times of 31 days. 
Symptomatic urinary tract infections (SUTI) occurred 
in only 6 of 214 TPS placements (2.8%), resulting in an 
incident rate of 0.93 SUTI per 1,000 TPS days.<br/>
TPS is a safe and efficacious means of alleviating symptoms 
of urinary retention. TPS does not share the same infection 
risk profile or quality-of-life drawbacks associated with 
urinary catheters; this makes TPS use relevant as a urinary 
catheter alternative or when a urinary catheter is not 
recommended.},
DOI = {}
}