suddensoverblowing

Earlier this year, US defense secretary Lloyd Austin was hospitalized for complications resulting from prostate cancer surgery. Details of his procedure, which was performed on December 22, were not fully disclosed. Press statements from the Pentagon indicated that Austin had undergone a minimally invasive prostatectomy, which is an operation to remove the prostate gland. Minimally invasive procedures are performed using robotic instruments passed through small “keyhole” incisions in the patient’s abdomen.

Just over a week later, Austin developed severe abdominal, hip, and leg pain. He was admitted to the intensive care unit at Walter Reed Hospital on January 2 for monitoring and further treatment. Doctors discovered that Austin had a urinary tract infection and fluid pooling in his abdomen that were impairing bowel functioning. The defense secretary was successfully treated, but then readmitted to the ICU on February 11 for what the Pentagon described as “an emergent bladder issue.” Two days after undergoing what was only described as a “non-surgical procedure performed under general anesthesia,” Austin was back at work. His cancer prognosis is said to be excellent.

Austin’s ordeal was covered extensively in the media. Although we cannot speculate about his specific case, to help our readers better understand the complications that might occur after a prostatectomy, I spoke with Dr. Boris Gershman, a urologist at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Gershman is also a member of the advisory and editorial board for the Harvard Medical School Guide to Prostate Diseases.

How common are urinary tract infections after a prostatectomy?

Minimally invasive prostatectomy is generally well tolerated. In one study that examined complications among over 29,000 men who had the operation, the rate of urinary tract infections was only 2.1%. The risk of sepsis — a more serious condition that occurs if the body’s response to an infection damages other organs — is much lower than that.

How would a urinary tract infection occur?

Although urinary tract infections are rare after prostatectomy, bacteria can travel into the urinary system through a catheter. An important part of a prostatectomy involves connecting the urethra — which is a tube that carries urine out of the body — directly to the bladder after the prostate has been taken out. As a last step in that process, we pass a catheter [a soft silicone tube] through the urethra and into the bladder to promote healing. Infection risks are minimized by giving antibiotics both during surgery and then again just prior to removing the catheter one to two weeks after the operation.

How do you treat urinary infectious complications when they do happen?

It’s not unusual to find small amounts of bacteria in the urine whenever you use a catheter. Normally they don’t cause any symptoms, but if infectious complications do occur, then we’ll admit the patient to the hospital and treat with broad-spectrum antibiotics that treat many different kinds of bacteria at once. We’ll also obtain a urine culture to identify the bacterial species causing the infection. Based on culture results, we can switch to different antibiotics that attack those microbes specifically. The course of treatment generally lasts 10 to 14 days.

Lloyd Austin also had gastrointestinal complications. Why might that have occurred?

Although I cannot speculate about Austin’s specific case, in general gastrointestinal complications are very rare — affecting fewer than 2% of patients treated using robotic methods. However, a few different things can happen. For instance, the small intestine can “fall asleep” after surgery, meaning it temporarily stops moving food and wastes through the bowel.

This is called an ileus. It can be due to multiple reasons, including as a result of anesthetics or pain medications. An ileus generally resolves on its own if patients avoid food or water by mouth for several days. If it causes too much pressure in the bowel, then we “decompress” the stomach by removing accumulated fluids through a nasogastric tube, which is threaded into the stomach through the nose and throat.

Some patients develop a different sort of surgical complication called a small bowel obstruction. We treat these the same way: by withholding food and water by mouth and removing fluids with a nasogastric tube if necessary. If the blockages are caused by scar tissues, in rare cases this may require a second surgery to fix the obstructing scar tissue.

Fluids might also collect in the pelvis after lymph nodes are removed during surgery. What’s happening in these cases?

Pelvic lymph nodes that drain the prostate are commonly removed during prostatectomy to determine if there is any cancer spread to the lymph nodes. A possible risk from lymph node removal is that lymph fluid might leak out after the procedure and pool up in the pelvis. This is called a lymphocele. Most lymphoceles are asymptomatic, but infrequently they may become infected. When that happens, we treat with antibiotics, and we might drain the lymphocele using a percutaneous catheter [which is placed through the skin]. Fortunately, newer surgical techniques are helping to ensure that lymphoceles occur very rarely.

Are there individual factors that increase the risk of prostatectomy complications?

Certainly, patients can have risk factors for infection. Diabetes, for instance, can inhibit the immune system, especially when patients have poor glycemic or glucose control [a limited ability to maintain normal blood sugar levels]. If patients have autoimmune diseases, or if they’re taking immunosuppressive medications, they may also be at increased risk of infectious or wound healing complications with surgery, and in some cases, may instead be treated with radiation to avoid these risks.

Thanks for walking me through this complex topic! Any parting thoughts for our readers?

It’s important to discuss the potential risks of surgery with your doctor so you can be fully informed. That said, prostatectomy these days using the minimally invasive approach has a very favorable risk profile. The majority of patients do really well, and fortunately severe complications requiring hospital readmission are very rare.

About the Author

Charlie Schmidt, Editor, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases

Charlie Schmidt is an award-winning freelance science writer based in Portland, Maine. In addition to writing for Harvard Health Publishing, Charlie has written for Science magazine, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Environmental Health Perspectives, … See Full Bio View all posts by Charlie Schmidt

About the Reviewer

Marc B. Garnick, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Marc B. Garnick is an internationally renowned expert in medical oncology and urologic cancer. A clinical professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, he also maintains an active clinical practice at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical … See Full Bio View all posts by Marc B. Garnick, MD

Snuff is a smokeless tobacco similar to chewing tobacco. It rarely makes headlines. But it certainly did when the FDA authorized a brand of snuff to market its products as having a major health advantage over cigarettes. Could this be true? Is it safe to use snuff?

What did the FDA authorize as a health claim?

Here’s the approved language for Copenhagen Classic Snuff:

If you smoke, consider this: switching completely to this product from cigarettes reduces risk of lung cancer.

While the statement is true, this FDA action — and the marketing that’s likely to follow — might suggest snuff is a safe product. It’s not. Let’s talk about the rest of the story.

What is snuff, anyway?

Snuff is a form of tobacco that’s finely ground. There are two types:

• Moist snuff. Users place a pinch or a pouch of tobacco behind their upper or lower lips or between their cheek and gum. They must repeatedly spit out or swallow the tobacco juice that accumulates. After a few minutes, they remove or spit out the tobacco as well. This recent FDA action applies to a brand of moist snuff.
• Dry snuff. This type is snorted (inhaled through the nose) and is less common in the US.

Both types are available in an array of scents and flavors. Users absorb nicotine and other chemicals into the bloodstream through the lining of the mouth. Blood levels of nicotine are similar between smokers and snuff users. But nicotine stays in the blood for a longer time with snuff users.

Why is snuff popular?

According to CDC statistics, 5.7 million adults in the US regularly use smokeless tobacco products — that’s about 2% of the adult population. A similar percentage (1.6%) of high school students use it as well. That’s despite restrictions on youth marketing and sales.

What accounts for its popularity?

• Snuff may be allowed in places that prohibit smoking.
• It tends to cost less than cigarettes: $300 to $1,000 a year versus several thousand dollars a year paid by some smokers.
• It doesn’t require inhaling smoke into the lungs, or exposing others to secondhand smoke.
• Snuff is safer than cigarettes in at least one way — it is less likely to cause lung cancer.
• It may help some cigarette smokers quit.

The serious health risks of snuff

While the risk of lung cancer is lower compared with cigarettes, snuff has plenty of other health risks, including

• higher risk of cancers of the mouth (such as the tongue, gums, and cheek), esophagus, and pancreas
• higher risk of heart disease and stroke
• harm to the developing teenage brain
• dental problems, such as discoloration of teeth, gum disease, tooth damage, bone loss around the teeth, tooth loosening or loss
• higher risk of premature birth and stillbirth among pregnant users.

And because nicotine is addictive, using any tobacco product can quickly become a habit that’s hard to break.

There are also the “ick” factors: bad breath and having to repeatedly spit out tobacco juice.

Could this new marketing message about snuff save lives?

Perhaps, if many smokers switch to snuff and give up smoking. That could reduce the number of people who develop smoking-related lung cancer. It might even reduce harms related to secondhand smoke.

But it’s also possible the new marketing message will attract nonsmokers, including teens, who weren’t previously using snuff. A bigger market for snuff products might boost health risks for many people, rather than lowering them.

The new FDA action is approved for a five-year period, and the company must monitor its impact. Is snuff an effective way to help smokers quit? Is a lower rate of lung cancer canceled out by a rise in other health risks? We don’t know yet. If the new evidence shows more overall health risks than benefits for snuff users compared with smokers, this new marketing authorization may be reversed.

The bottom line

If you smoke, concerns you have about lung cancer or other smoking-related health problems are justified. But snuff should not be the first choice to help break the smoking habit. Commit to quit using safer options that don’t involve tobacco, such as nicotine gum or patches, counseling, and medications.

While the FDA’s decision generated news headlines that framed snuff as safer than smoking, it’s important to note that the FDA did not endorse the use of snuff — or even suggest that snuff is a safe product. Whether smoked or smokeless, tobacco creates enormous health burdens and suffering. Clearly, it’s best not to use any tobacco product.

Until we have a better understanding of its impact, I think any new marketing of this sort should also make clear that using snuff comes with other important health risks — even if lung cancer isn’t the biggest one.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD