Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica · 2017
Comparison of transurethral incision of the prostate and silodosin in patients having benign prostatic obstruction in terms of retrograde ejaculation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Cakiroglu Basri, Hazar Aydin Ismet, Sinanoglu Orhun, Arda Ersan, Ekici Sinan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare the functional outcomes and retrograde ejaculation (RE) after transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) or silodosin in bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) secondary to a small prostate.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data from December 2011 through December 2014 of 192 LUTS patients having fertility concerns with prostate volume smaller than 40 ml receiving either TUIP or silodosin treatment were prospectively reviewed. The treatment outcomes were evaluated and compared.
RESULTS: TUIP was performed in 96 cases and silodosin 8 mg was prescribed in 96 cases. At 12th months after TUIP or continuous silodosin treatment, the decrease in mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and postvoiding residual urine (PVR) and the improvement of mean maximal flow rate (Qmax) were significant (p = 0.000). The improvement in IPPS and Qmax was significantly higher in TUIP group compared to silodosin group (p = 0.005, p = 0.000) with a lower rate of retrograde ejaculation (RE) in TUIP group. (11/96 vs 33/96) (p = 0.000) Conclusions: Both TUIP and silodosin ensures comparable improvement in PVR, IPSS and Qmax with a lower rate of RE on the TUIP group in prostates weighing less than 40 grams suggesting that TUIP is a better choice in younger patiens seeking preservation of ejaculation with fertility concerns.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data from December 2011 through December 2014 of 192 LUTS patients having fertility concerns with prostate volume smaller than 40 ml receiving either TUIP or silodosin treatment were prospectively reviewed. The treatment outcomes were evaluated and compared.
RESULTS: TUIP was performed in 96 cases and silodosin 8 mg was prescribed in 96 cases. At 12th months after TUIP or continuous silodosin treatment, the decrease in mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and postvoiding residual urine (PVR) and the improvement of mean maximal flow rate (Qmax) were significant (p = 0.000). The improvement in IPPS and Qmax was significantly higher in TUIP group compared to silodosin group (p = 0.005, p = 0.000) with a lower rate of retrograde ejaculation (RE) in TUIP group. (11/96 vs 33/96) (p = 0.000) Conclusions: Both TUIP and silodosin ensures comparable improvement in PVR, IPSS and Qmax with a lower rate of RE on the TUIP group in prostates weighing less than 40 grams suggesting that TUIP is a better choice in younger patiens seeking preservation of ejaculation with fertility concerns.