Urology · 2003
Interstitial laser coagulation versus transurethral prostate resection for treating benign prostatic obstruction: a randomized trial with 2-year follow-up.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kursh Elroy D, Concepcion Raoul, Chan Seck, Hudson Perry, Ratner Mark, Eyre Robert
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether interstitial laser coagulation (ILC) is as effective and as safe as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). The treatment of choice for bladder outflow obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia is TURP. However, ILC is a less invasive outpatient procedure that may be as effective and safe as TURP.
METHODS: In a multicenter randomized trial at six U.S. tertiary care hospitals, we treated 72 men with bladder outflow obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with either TURP (n = 35) or ILC (n = 37). The outcome measures were peak flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen levels, symptom and quality-of-life indexes, sexual function, and adverse event rates. Measurements were taken at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.
RESULTS: At 2 years, the TURP patients had better median peak flow rates, but not significantly so (range 16.5 to 13.9 mL/s, 95% confidence interval for the 2.6 mL/s difference of -0.4 to 7.6). The median scores on the symptom indexes and quality-of-life measures were similarly improved in both groups. Of 37 ILC patients, 6 (16%) were retreated with TURP in the first year. Sexual function declined in the TURP group but remained stable in the ILC group. The adverse event rates were similar, although the events were more serious in the TURP group.
CONCLUSIONS: ILC compares respectably with TURP. Given the advantages of an outpatient procedure, similar results in symptom reduction and quality-of-life measures, and less severe adverse effects, ILC can be an acceptable alternative to TURP.
METHODS: In a multicenter randomized trial at six U.S. tertiary care hospitals, we treated 72 men with bladder outflow obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with either TURP (n = 35) or ILC (n = 37). The outcome measures were peak flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen levels, symptom and quality-of-life indexes, sexual function, and adverse event rates. Measurements were taken at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.
RESULTS: At 2 years, the TURP patients had better median peak flow rates, but not significantly so (range 16.5 to 13.9 mL/s, 95% confidence interval for the 2.6 mL/s difference of -0.4 to 7.6). The median scores on the symptom indexes and quality-of-life measures were similarly improved in both groups. Of 37 ILC patients, 6 (16%) were retreated with TURP in the first year. Sexual function declined in the TURP group but remained stable in the ILC group. The adverse event rates were similar, although the events were more serious in the TURP group.
CONCLUSIONS: ILC compares respectably with TURP. Given the advantages of an outpatient procedure, similar results in symptom reduction and quality-of-life measures, and less severe adverse effects, ILC can be an acceptable alternative to TURP.