Journal of endourology · 2018
Prostatic Urethral Lift: Does Size Matter?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Shah Bhavik B, Tayon Kevin, Madiraju SriGita, Carrion Rafael E, Perito Paul
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess if prostatic urethral lift (PUL) can be as effective on larger prostates. PUL is an endoscopic device that retracts prostatic tissue to relieve benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) obstruction. In 2013, PUL was approved for patients with a prostate size of <80 g and no median lobes. The approval was primarily based on the L.I.F.T. study, which only evaluated patients with prostates between 30 and 80 g in size.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-four patients underwent PUL between April 2, 2014, and December 2, 2015, for BPH management. Fifty-one patients were in the <80 g prostate group (median: 46 g, range: 20-78 g) and 23 in the >80 g prostate group (median: 112 g, range: 81-254 g). Student t-tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. p-Value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Median time between PUL and follow-up AUA symptom score (AUASS) was 144 days. A difference between the numbers of PUL implants used was seen. A significant improvement in AUASSs was seen in both groups following the procedure. There was no significant difference in age, AUASS before or after the procedure, or need for an additional outlet procedure between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Early experience finds that a sufficient number of men with larger prostates appear to benefit from PUL. Patients with >80 g prostate size were more likely to have a median lobe and may benefit from resection of the median lobe at time of the PUL. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the durability of the PUL procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-four patients underwent PUL between April 2, 2014, and December 2, 2015, for BPH management. Fifty-one patients were in the <80 g prostate group (median: 46 g, range: 20-78 g) and 23 in the >80 g prostate group (median: 112 g, range: 81-254 g). Student t-tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. p-Value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Median time between PUL and follow-up AUA symptom score (AUASS) was 144 days. A difference between the numbers of PUL implants used was seen. A significant improvement in AUASSs was seen in both groups following the procedure. There was no significant difference in age, AUASS before or after the procedure, or need for an additional outlet procedure between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Early experience finds that a sufficient number of men with larger prostates appear to benefit from PUL. Patients with >80 g prostate size were more likely to have a median lobe and may benefit from resection of the median lobe at time of the PUL. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the durability of the PUL procedure.