Translational andrology and urology · 2022
A multicenter retrospective study of transurethral prostate split for benign prostate 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.
Wei Jingchao, Zhang Shigeng, Wang Bohan, Ke Mang, Liu Sheng, Yang Zhengjia, Zhou Guoyun, Qian Jiacheng, Lv Wenhui, Fan Yi, Shi Zhan, Wan Lijun, Chen Yongliang, He Jinkui, Liang Hui, Long Huimin, Wang Shijian, Wang Hao, Chen Bing, Shao Huan, Yang Binbin, Sun Chengfang, Huangfu Qi, Du Chuanjun, Cai Ming, Wen Jiaming
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) is effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, there is still a lack of research focusing on the optimal target population for TUSP. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of TUSP in patients with different prostate volumes or ages.
METHODS: The study was a multicenter retrospective study. The outcomes of TUSP in BPH patients with different prostate volumes or different ages were compared. A total of 439 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to prostate volume, with a cut-off value of 50 mL. Similarly, the cut-off value for the age groups was 70 years. Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 73.4 years, and the mean prostate volume was 51.2 mL. At 12-month follow-up after TUSP treatment, the patients' International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) scores, and postvoid residual (PVR) volumes decreased significantly, while peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) increased significantly. Intraoperative hemoglobin (Hb) reduction was significantly lower in the small volume group than in the large volume group. The incidence of postoperative urinary urgency and transient incontinence was lower in the small volume group. IPSS score, PVR, and Qmax in the small volume group showed more remarkable changes at several time points compared to the preoperative period. Postoperative pain scores were higher in the small volume group than in the large volume group. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of long-term complications. The younger group showed greater variation in PVR and Qmax at some time points but less variation in QoL than the older group.
CONCLUSIONS: TUSP is overall safe and effective in treating BPH. This study showed differences in the outcomes of TUSP in treating different prostate volumes or ages of BPH patients. The optimal surgical approach for BPH patients might be selected clinically based on a combination of prostate volume or patient age.
METHODS: The study was a multicenter retrospective study. The outcomes of TUSP in BPH patients with different prostate volumes or different ages were compared. A total of 439 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to prostate volume, with a cut-off value of 50 mL. Similarly, the cut-off value for the age groups was 70 years. Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 73.4 years, and the mean prostate volume was 51.2 mL. At 12-month follow-up after TUSP treatment, the patients' International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) scores, and postvoid residual (PVR) volumes decreased significantly, while peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) increased significantly. Intraoperative hemoglobin (Hb) reduction was significantly lower in the small volume group than in the large volume group. The incidence of postoperative urinary urgency and transient incontinence was lower in the small volume group. IPSS score, PVR, and Qmax in the small volume group showed more remarkable changes at several time points compared to the preoperative period. Postoperative pain scores were higher in the small volume group than in the large volume group. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of long-term complications. The younger group showed greater variation in PVR and Qmax at some time points but less variation in QoL than the older group.
CONCLUSIONS: TUSP is overall safe and effective in treating BPH. This study showed differences in the outcomes of TUSP in treating different prostate volumes or ages of BPH patients. The optimal surgical approach for BPH patients might be selected clinically based on a combination of prostate volume or patient age.