Lower urinary tract symptoms · 2024
Preoperative factors predicting poor therapeutic efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
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.
Watanabe Kyohei, Otsuka Atsushi, Kitagawa Yuichi, Sano Asuka, Sato Ryo, Matsushita Yuto, Watanabe Hiromitsu, Tamura Keita, Motoyama Daisuke, Ito Toshiki, Takada Sanki, Miyake Hideaki
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We assessed preoperative factors predicting the poor therapeutic efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients.
METHODS: The present study included 159 patients who underwent HoLEP between August 2015 and June 2021 at our institution. Overall therapeutic efficacy was divided into good and poor therapeutic efficacies according to changes in the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life (IPSS-QOL), and the maximum urinary flow rate. Patients were divided into good and poor therapeutic efficacy groups based on findings obtained 3 months after HoLEP, and comparative assessments were performed between the two groups.
RESULTS: The therapeutic efficacy of HoLEP was poor in 53 (33.3%) out of 159 patients. Intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), IPSS, IPSS-QOL, post-void residual volume (PVR), and the presence of overactive bladder (OAB) were significantly higher in the poor therapeutic efficacy group than in the good therapeutic efficacy group. A multivariable analysis of several factors identified the preoperative presence of OAB and short IPP as independent risk factors for the poor therapeutic efficacy of HoLEP. When treatment efficacy was divided according to risk factors, poor therapeutic efficacy was observed in only 14% of patients with prolonged IPP and the absence of OAB.
CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic efficacy of HoLEP may be poor in patients with OAB and short IPP, resulting in the significant deterioration of lower urinary tract symptoms. Accordingly, it is important to consider the presence or absence of OAB and IPP measurements when selecting indications for HoLEP.
METHODS: The present study included 159 patients who underwent HoLEP between August 2015 and June 2021 at our institution. Overall therapeutic efficacy was divided into good and poor therapeutic efficacies according to changes in the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life (IPSS-QOL), and the maximum urinary flow rate. Patients were divided into good and poor therapeutic efficacy groups based on findings obtained 3 months after HoLEP, and comparative assessments were performed between the two groups.
RESULTS: The therapeutic efficacy of HoLEP was poor in 53 (33.3%) out of 159 patients. Intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), IPSS, IPSS-QOL, post-void residual volume (PVR), and the presence of overactive bladder (OAB) were significantly higher in the poor therapeutic efficacy group than in the good therapeutic efficacy group. A multivariable analysis of several factors identified the preoperative presence of OAB and short IPP as independent risk factors for the poor therapeutic efficacy of HoLEP. When treatment efficacy was divided according to risk factors, poor therapeutic efficacy was observed in only 14% of patients with prolonged IPP and the absence of OAB.
CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic efficacy of HoLEP may be poor in patients with OAB and short IPP, resulting in the significant deterioration of lower urinary tract symptoms. Accordingly, it is important to consider the presence or absence of OAB and IPP measurements when selecting indications for HoLEP.