World journal of urology · 2024
Transurethral bipolar enucleation using a TUEB loop for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hagiuda Jun, Masuda Tsukasa, Takahashi Ryohei, Tamaki Satoshi, Nakagawa Ken
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of transurethral enucleation with bipolar system (TUEB) regardless of the prostate size using a specially developed TUEB loop.
METHODS: A total of 251 patients who underwent TUEB were categorized into two groups depending on the prostate volume (PV): small-PV (≤ 80 mL) group, 133 patients; large-PV (> 80 mL) group, 118 patients. Comparisons of background information and treatment outcomes were performed between the groups.
RESULTS: Operation (113.5 vs 166.4 min), enucleation (49.4 vs 68.1 min), and morcellation (11.4 vs 26.4 min) times were longer and hemoglobin decreased significantly (0.84 vs 1.30 g/dL) in the large PV group. However, the enucleation efficiency (enucleated weight per enucleation time; 0.71 vs 0.97 g/min) and prostate-specific antigen reduction rate (24.6% vs 16.1%) were significantly better in the large-PV group, with similar enucleation rates (enucleated weight per transitional zone volume; 82% vs 81%). The International Prostate Symptom Score, uroflowmetry maximum flow rate, and post-void residual urine in both groups improved at 3, 6, and 12 months compared with baseline. No patient underwent blood transfusion. There were no differences in the frequency of postoperative clot retention, urethral stricture, or stress incontinence at 3, 6, and 12 months.
CONCLUSION: TUEB using a TUEB loop resulted in high levels of satisfaction regarding the enucleation efficiency, efficacy, and safety for BPH surgery regardless of the prostate size. TUEB should be considered one of the best treatment options for large BPH that is uncontrollable with medication.
METHODS: A total of 251 patients who underwent TUEB were categorized into two groups depending on the prostate volume (PV): small-PV (≤ 80 mL) group, 133 patients; large-PV (> 80 mL) group, 118 patients. Comparisons of background information and treatment outcomes were performed between the groups.
RESULTS: Operation (113.5 vs 166.4 min), enucleation (49.4 vs 68.1 min), and morcellation (11.4 vs 26.4 min) times were longer and hemoglobin decreased significantly (0.84 vs 1.30 g/dL) in the large PV group. However, the enucleation efficiency (enucleated weight per enucleation time; 0.71 vs 0.97 g/min) and prostate-specific antigen reduction rate (24.6% vs 16.1%) were significantly better in the large-PV group, with similar enucleation rates (enucleated weight per transitional zone volume; 82% vs 81%). The International Prostate Symptom Score, uroflowmetry maximum flow rate, and post-void residual urine in both groups improved at 3, 6, and 12 months compared with baseline. No patient underwent blood transfusion. There were no differences in the frequency of postoperative clot retention, urethral stricture, or stress incontinence at 3, 6, and 12 months.
CONCLUSION: TUEB using a TUEB loop resulted in high levels of satisfaction regarding the enucleation efficiency, efficacy, and safety for BPH surgery regardless of the prostate size. TUEB should be considered one of the best treatment options for large BPH that is uncontrollable with medication.