Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026
Outcomes of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate in Patients with Chronic Painless Urinary Retention and Postvoid Residual Urine ≥ 1-l: A Critical Evaluation at the Extreme Ends of the Spectrum.
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.
Rathinam Aravindh, Bhatia Ansh, Raymo Adele, Meyreles Maggie, Katz Jonathan, Marcovich Robert, Shah Hemendra Navinchandra
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Chronic painless urine retention (CUR) with > 1 liter of postvoid residual urine (PVR) is a rare but serious complication of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of HoLEP in men with chronic painless urinary retention and PVR volumes exceeding 1 l.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from men who underwent "en-bloc" HoLEP between July 2017 and May 2024. We identified patients with CUR and PVR > 1 l due to BPO (study group). Excluded were those with acute-on-chronic retention, bladder diverticulum or neurogenic bladder. A matched-pair analysis (1:2) was performed with patients having PVR < 50 ml (control group). We compared demographic, perioperative, and postoperative voiding parameters and complications up to 1 year.
RESULTS: Of 660 patients, 20 had baseline PVR > 1 l. Demographic and preoperative parameters were similar, except for a higher catheterization rate in the study group (50% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.005). The study group had a higher risk of failing a voiding trial on the first postoperative day (20% vs 5.2%) though the difference was not statistically significant. By 1-month post-HoLEP, all patients in the study group were catheter-free and voiding spontaneously. No significant differences were found in postoperative voiding improvements and complications between the groups. Neither group required medical or surgical retreatment within 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP is effective and safe for patients with CUR and PVR > 1 l due to BPO, although these patients have a higher risk of failing a voiding trial on the first postoperative day.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from men who underwent "en-bloc" HoLEP between July 2017 and May 2024. We identified patients with CUR and PVR > 1 l due to BPO (study group). Excluded were those with acute-on-chronic retention, bladder diverticulum or neurogenic bladder. A matched-pair analysis (1:2) was performed with patients having PVR < 50 ml (control group). We compared demographic, perioperative, and postoperative voiding parameters and complications up to 1 year.
RESULTS: Of 660 patients, 20 had baseline PVR > 1 l. Demographic and preoperative parameters were similar, except for a higher catheterization rate in the study group (50% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.005). The study group had a higher risk of failing a voiding trial on the first postoperative day (20% vs 5.2%) though the difference was not statistically significant. By 1-month post-HoLEP, all patients in the study group were catheter-free and voiding spontaneously. No significant differences were found in postoperative voiding improvements and complications between the groups. Neither group required medical or surgical retreatment within 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP is effective and safe for patients with CUR and PVR > 1 l due to BPO, although these patients have a higher risk of failing a voiding trial on the first postoperative day.