World journal of urology · 2013
Thulium laser resection versus plasmakinetic resection of prostates larger than 80 ml.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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 Haibin, Shao Yi, Sun Feng, Sun Xiaowen, Zhuo Jian, Zhao Fujun, Han Bangmin, Jiang Juntao, Chen Huirong, Xia Shujie
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficiency of thulium laser resection of the prostate-tangerine technique (TmLRP-TT) and plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) for aged symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with large volume prostates (>80 ml) in a prospective randomized trial with an 18-month follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to November 2011, 90 BPH patients with large volume prostates were randomized for surgical treatment with TmLRP-TT (n = 45, group 1) or PKRP (n = 45, group 2). The preoperative and postoperative parameters were recorded and compared. All patients were evaluated at 1, 6, 12 and 18 months postoperatively using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoL), maximum flow rate (Q max), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function score. All perioperative complications were also documented and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system.
RESULTS: Compared with the PKRP group, the TmLRP-TT group had a statistically lower hemoglobin drop (0.86 ± 0.42 vs. 1.34 ± 1.04 g/dl, P < 0.01), shorter catheterization time (1.91 ± 0.85 vs. 2.36 ± 0.74 days, P < 0.01) and hospital stay (3.80 ± 0.46 vs. 5.02 ± 0.54 days, P < 0.01). Within the observation period of 18 months, both groups had significant postoperative improvement in IPSS, QoL, Q max and PVR, although no difference was observed between the two groups. Only one patient receiving PKRP treatment required a blood transfusion perioperatively. During the 18-month follow-up, one patient in each group experienced urethral stricture and one patient in the PKRP group experienced bladder neck contracture. Minor complications that required no or noninterventional treatment occurred in 6 (13.33 %) of TmLRP-TT group (Clavien grade 1, 13.33 % and grade 2, 0 %) and 10 (22.22 %) of PKRP group (Clavien grade 1, 20.00 % and grade 2, 2.22 %). No severe complications required reinterventions in both groups (Clavien grade 3, 0 %; grade 4, 0 %; grade 5, 0 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Both TmLRP-TT and PKRP are safe and effective treatment options for large prostates that require resection. Taking into account less blood loss, shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, TmLRP-TT may be a better treatment for patients with large prostates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to November 2011, 90 BPH patients with large volume prostates were randomized for surgical treatment with TmLRP-TT (n = 45, group 1) or PKRP (n = 45, group 2). The preoperative and postoperative parameters were recorded and compared. All patients were evaluated at 1, 6, 12 and 18 months postoperatively using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoL), maximum flow rate (Q max), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function score. All perioperative complications were also documented and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system.
RESULTS: Compared with the PKRP group, the TmLRP-TT group had a statistically lower hemoglobin drop (0.86 ± 0.42 vs. 1.34 ± 1.04 g/dl, P < 0.01), shorter catheterization time (1.91 ± 0.85 vs. 2.36 ± 0.74 days, P < 0.01) and hospital stay (3.80 ± 0.46 vs. 5.02 ± 0.54 days, P < 0.01). Within the observation period of 18 months, both groups had significant postoperative improvement in IPSS, QoL, Q max and PVR, although no difference was observed between the two groups. Only one patient receiving PKRP treatment required a blood transfusion perioperatively. During the 18-month follow-up, one patient in each group experienced urethral stricture and one patient in the PKRP group experienced bladder neck contracture. Minor complications that required no or noninterventional treatment occurred in 6 (13.33 %) of TmLRP-TT group (Clavien grade 1, 13.33 % and grade 2, 0 %) and 10 (22.22 %) of PKRP group (Clavien grade 1, 20.00 % and grade 2, 2.22 %). No severe complications required reinterventions in both groups (Clavien grade 3, 0 %; grade 4, 0 %; grade 5, 0 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Both TmLRP-TT and PKRP are safe and effective treatment options for large prostates that require resection. Taking into account less blood loss, shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, TmLRP-TT may be a better treatment for patients with large prostates.