Urology · 2022
HoLEPs: A Comparative Study of Men With Massive Prostate Volumes ≥150 mL and <150 mL.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Tay Li June, Kulkarni Meghana, Oluwole-Ojo Akinlolu, Spurling Leigh James, El-Hage Oussama, DiBenedetto Ella, Hadjipavlou Marios, Popert Rick, Challacombe Ben
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes following Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) in men with prostate volumes ≥150cc and compare this to men with prostate volumes ≤150 cc.
PATIENTS & METHODS: We analyzed our prospective database of consecutive patients undergoing HoLEP in a single tertiary public hospital between October 2016 and January 2019. We excluded patients with clinically significant prostate cancer or neurogenic bladders. Preoperative prostate volume was measured on MRI or ultrasonography. Perioperative variables and functional outcomes were recorded.
RESULTS: Of 304 HoLEPs performed, we included 97 patients with prostate volume of ≥150 cc and 186 patients with prostate volume <150 cc. Comparing both cohorts (≥150 cc vs <150 cc): mean age was 71.5 vs 68.3 years, prostate volume 195 cc vs 93 cc, preoperative Qmax 9.6mL/s vs 10mL/s, American Urology Association Symptom Score (IPSS) 21 points vs 20.5 points; mean PSA 13.2µg/L vs 8.8µg/L; laser duration 86 vs 59 minutes; morcellation duration 29 vs 14 minutes; enucleated weight was 124 g vs 60 g. One patient (1%) from the ≥150 cc cohort required a surgical procedure for stress urinary incontinence, and none from the <150 cc cohort, but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .12). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative Qmax (32.3 vs 26.4 mL/s; P = .12), IPSS (5.9 points vs 7.3points; P = .23), mean PSA (3.9 µg/L vs 2.2 µg/L; P = .60), stricture incidence (1% vs 2.7%; P = .63), or significant stress urinary incontinence (4.1% vs 0.5%; P = .08).
CONCLUSION: Our large series demonstrates that HoLEP is safe and effective in patients with massive prostates (≥150 cc), with similar outcomes compared to patients with prostates <150 cc.
PATIENTS & METHODS: We analyzed our prospective database of consecutive patients undergoing HoLEP in a single tertiary public hospital between October 2016 and January 2019. We excluded patients with clinically significant prostate cancer or neurogenic bladders. Preoperative prostate volume was measured on MRI or ultrasonography. Perioperative variables and functional outcomes were recorded.
RESULTS: Of 304 HoLEPs performed, we included 97 patients with prostate volume of ≥150 cc and 186 patients with prostate volume <150 cc. Comparing both cohorts (≥150 cc vs <150 cc): mean age was 71.5 vs 68.3 years, prostate volume 195 cc vs 93 cc, preoperative Qmax 9.6mL/s vs 10mL/s, American Urology Association Symptom Score (IPSS) 21 points vs 20.5 points; mean PSA 13.2µg/L vs 8.8µg/L; laser duration 86 vs 59 minutes; morcellation duration 29 vs 14 minutes; enucleated weight was 124 g vs 60 g. One patient (1%) from the ≥150 cc cohort required a surgical procedure for stress urinary incontinence, and none from the <150 cc cohort, but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .12). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative Qmax (32.3 vs 26.4 mL/s; P = .12), IPSS (5.9 points vs 7.3points; P = .23), mean PSA (3.9 µg/L vs 2.2 µg/L; P = .60), stricture incidence (1% vs 2.7%; P = .63), or significant stress urinary incontinence (4.1% vs 0.5%; P = .08).
CONCLUSION: Our large series demonstrates that HoLEP is safe and effective in patients with massive prostates (≥150 cc), with similar outcomes compared to patients with prostates <150 cc.