The aging male : the official journal of the International Society for the Study of the Aging Male · 2023
Comparative analysis of the safety and efficacy of 1470-nm diode laser enucleation of the prostate and plasmakinetic resection of prostate in the treatment of large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (>80 ml).
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.
Xiao Xiao, Maolin Xiao, Tao Xiong, Xiaohong Deng, Jinzhong Wang, Wei Tong, Gaoliang Chen, Mengxi Tang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of 1470-nm diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) with that of plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in treating patients with large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH > 80ml).
METHODS: The clinical data from 211 cases of BPH (>80 ml) were collected for analysis. The patients were divided into two groups: the PKRP group (n = 118) and the DiLEP group (n = 93), based on the surgical method used.
RESULT: The DiLEP group demonstrated significantly lower surgical time (p < 0.001), intraoperative bleeding (p < 0.001), bladder flushing time (p = 0.003), indwelling catheter time (p < 0.005), and length of hospital stay (p = 0.018) compared to the PKRP group. However, the quality of the prostatectomy was significantly higher in the DiLEP group (p = 0.005). The Qmax for the DiLEP group was significantly higher than that of the PKRP group (p < 0.05). Compared to the PKRP group, the incidence of urinary incontinence in the DiLEP group increased significantly 4 weeks post-surgery (p = 0.026), although the need for blood transfusion during surgery was significantly reduced (p = 0.037).
CONCLUSION: Both DiLEP and PKRP are safe and effective methods for treating large-volume BPH. However, DiLEP offers advantages such as more thorough glandular resection, shorter surgical time, reduced bleeding, quicker recovery, and fewer complications.
METHODS: The clinical data from 211 cases of BPH (>80 ml) were collected for analysis. The patients were divided into two groups: the PKRP group (n = 118) and the DiLEP group (n = 93), based on the surgical method used.
RESULT: The DiLEP group demonstrated significantly lower surgical time (p < 0.001), intraoperative bleeding (p < 0.001), bladder flushing time (p = 0.003), indwelling catheter time (p < 0.005), and length of hospital stay (p = 0.018) compared to the PKRP group. However, the quality of the prostatectomy was significantly higher in the DiLEP group (p = 0.005). The Qmax for the DiLEP group was significantly higher than that of the PKRP group (p < 0.05). Compared to the PKRP group, the incidence of urinary incontinence in the DiLEP group increased significantly 4 weeks post-surgery (p = 0.026), although the need for blood transfusion during surgery was significantly reduced (p = 0.037).
CONCLUSION: Both DiLEP and PKRP are safe and effective methods for treating large-volume BPH. However, DiLEP offers advantages such as more thorough glandular resection, shorter surgical time, reduced bleeding, quicker recovery, and fewer complications.