Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica · 2023
Safety profile of treatment with greenlight versus Thulium Laser for 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.
Campobasso Davide, Barbieri Antonio, Bocchialini Tommaso, Pozzoli Gian Luigi, Dinale Francesco, Facchini Francesco, Grande Marco Serafino, Kwe Jean Emmanuel, Larosa Michelangelo, Guarino Giulio, Mezzogori Davide, Simonetti Elisa, Ziglioli Francesco, Frattini Antonio, Maestroni Umberto Vittorio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The major strengths of surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with laser are reduced morbidity compared to endoscopic resection. No studies analysed the different risk of intra/peri-operative events between patients undergoing Thulium and GreenLight procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive cases undergoing GreenLight vaporization and Thulium procedures performed during the learning curve of two expert endoscopic surgeons. Pre-operative data, intra and post-operative events at 90 days were analysed.
RESULTS: Patients on antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy were pre-dominant in the Green group (p < 0.0001). Rates of blood transfusion (p < 0.0038), use of resectoscope (p < 0.0086), and transient stress urinary incontinence were statistically higher in the Thulium group. On the contrary conversions to TURP (p < 0.023) were more frequent in GreenLight patients. Readmissions were more frequently necessary in GreenLight group (24%) vs. Thulium group (26.6%). The overall complication rate in GreenLight and Thulium groups were 31% and 53% respectively; Clavien 3b complications were 13% in Thulium patients versus 1% in GreenLight patients.
CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight and Thulium treatments show similar safety profiles. Randomized controlled trial are needed to better clarify the rate of major complications in Thulium group, and the incidence of post-operative storage symptoms in these patients' populations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive cases undergoing GreenLight vaporization and Thulium procedures performed during the learning curve of two expert endoscopic surgeons. Pre-operative data, intra and post-operative events at 90 days were analysed.
RESULTS: Patients on antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy were pre-dominant in the Green group (p < 0.0001). Rates of blood transfusion (p < 0.0038), use of resectoscope (p < 0.0086), and transient stress urinary incontinence were statistically higher in the Thulium group. On the contrary conversions to TURP (p < 0.023) were more frequent in GreenLight patients. Readmissions were more frequently necessary in GreenLight group (24%) vs. Thulium group (26.6%). The overall complication rate in GreenLight and Thulium groups were 31% and 53% respectively; Clavien 3b complications were 13% in Thulium patients versus 1% in GreenLight patients.
CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight and Thulium treatments show similar safety profiles. Randomized controlled trial are needed to better clarify the rate of major complications in Thulium group, and the incidence of post-operative storage symptoms in these patients' populations.