MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09908.x

Медицинская библиотека · BJU international · 2011

Prostate laser vaporization in men with urinary retention.

Woldrich Jeffrey M, Palazzi-Churas Kerrin, Lakin Charles, Albo Michael, Parsons J Kellogg

Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

• To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laser vaporization of the prostate (LVP) with several different wavelengths for urinary retention.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

• A cohort study of patients undergoing LVP from 2005 to 2009 at a single institution was performed. • Outcomes were compared in those patients with urinary retention versus those without, using t-tests, Mann-Whitney U-test, chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate.

RESULTS

• During the study period, 122 patients underwent LVP, of which 39 (32%) presented with refractory urinary retention requiring indwelling or intermittent catheterization. • The mean ± SD period of postoperative follow-up was 11.2 ± 9.6 months. Comparing patients with and without urinary retention, there were no significant preoperative differences in median body mass index (25.6 versus 26.4 kg/m(2) ; P= 0.40) or prostate-specific antigen (2.3 versus 2 ng/mL; P= 0.27). • Patients with urinary retention were significantly more likely to be diabetic (33% versus 12%; P= 0.01), have heart disease (36% versus 15%; P= 0.01) and be taking anticoagulants (61% versus 31%; P= 0.003). • Following LVP, retention patients were more likely than non-retention patients to fail an initial voiding trial (28.2% versus 7.2%; P= 0.002). • In total, 36 of 39 (92%) retention patients no longer required catheterization after postoperative recovery. No patients required perioperative transfusion. • Compared to those without preoperative retention, retention patients had a longer median duration of postoperative catheterization (3 versus 1 days; P= 0.01). • There were similar rates of low- and high-grade complications (P= 0.275 and 1.000, respectively) and no significant difference in median hospital stay (1 versus 0 days; P= 0.212).

CONCLUSIONS

• In the present study cohort, LVP was an effective and safe therapy for urinary retention. • Compared to patients without retention, those with retention had a higher prevalence of heart disease, diabetes and anticoagulant use. • Because the morbidity of LVP is low, and the prevalence of co-morbid disease high, LVP should be considered for the surgical management of refractory urinary retention.

Для цитирования: Woldrich Jeffrey M, Palazzi-Churas Kerrin, Lakin Charles, Albo Michael, Parsons J Kellogg. Prostate laser vaporization in men with urinary retention.. BJU international. 2011. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09908.x.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.