The relationship of palliative transurethral resection of the prostate with disease progression in patients with prostate cancer

Study Type – Prognosis (exception cohort)
Level of Evidence 1b

OBJECTIVES

To test, in a prostate‐cancer population‐based database, the validity of the finding that in single‐institution series, palliative transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) is associated with an increased risk of progression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the Surveillance Epidemiology and END Results Registry, we identified men who had a TURP subsequent to their diagnosis of prostate cancer, from 1998 or 1999. The outcome of interest was disease progression, as defined by the initiation of androgen‐deprivation therapy or procedures indicating progressive urinary obstruction. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the adjusted odds of signal events related to disease progression adjusting for the concurrent effect of the covariates.

RESULTS

There were 29 361 men with prostate cancer and 2742 (9.3%) had a TURP after the diagnosis. These men had a mean age of 75 years and were unlikely to undergo definitive primary treatment. Men receiving TURP were more likely to undergo orchidectomy than men who did not have a TURP (odds ratio 1.64; 95% confidence interval 1.03–2.60) even after adjusting for differences in cancer‐directed treatment, tumour stage and grade, prostate‐specific antigen level, race, and age at diagnosis. These men were also more likely to have malignant urinary obstruction (ureteric and bladder outlet) than were men who did not have TURP.

CONCLUSION

The requirement for TURP is an adverse prognostic marker even when this is adjusted for classical tumour characteristics. Although the exact reasons for this finding are unclear, consideration should be given to adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing TURP.     

三种经尿道前列腺切除术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较

目的比较良性前列腺增生（BPH）的三种经尿道手术治疗效果。方法分别采用经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）、经尿道双极等离子前列腺切除术（PKRP）和经尿道铥激光前列腺切除术（TmLRP）治疗BPH共137例。结果三种术式患者手术前后前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOLs）、残余尿（RUV）、最大尿流率（Qmax）比较均得到显著改善（P〈0．01），疗效满意。前列腺重量（PW）〈40g时，TmLRP组手术时间明显短于PKRP和TURP组（P〈0．01）。PW〉50g时，TmLRP组手术时间明显长于PKRP和TURP组（P〈0．01）。TmLRP和PKRP组术中出血少，术后膀胱冲洗时间、留管时间及住院时间均短于TURP组（P〈0．01）。站论三种经尿道手术方法均是治疗BPH的有效手段，TmLRP和PKRP比TURP更安全，术中及术后并发症更少。     

经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术和传统电切术治疗BPH的疗效比较

目的:比较经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术和等离子刀经尿道传统电切术治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的临床疗效,并对分离电切术进行研究。方法:2005年9月至2010年8月,收集81例BPH患者,随机分为2组。单盲法,行经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术40例,行等离子刀经尿道传统电切术41例;比较2组年龄、术前超声测量前列腺体积、手术中切除腺体重量、手术时间、术中出血、术后带尿管时间、术前及术后IPSS评分(国际前列腺症状评分)。结果:两组病例仅术后IPSS评分比较有统计学意义(P<0.05),分离电切组与传统电切组IPSS评分分别为(8.70±1.13)分和(9.95±1.54)分。结论:经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术和等离子刀经尿道传统电切术比较,经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术临床疗效更为显著。     

经尿道前列腺电切术和(或)汽化切除术治疗良性前列腺增生的临床经验

目的:探讨经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)和经尿道前列腺汽化切除术(TUVP)单独或联合治疗BPH的安全性和疗效。方法:2009年6月~2012年6月采用TURP和/或TUVP治疗BPH患者376例,其中TURP组116例,TUVP组125例,TURP与TUVP联合组(联合组)135例。经直肠B超检查计算三组前列腺重量分别为(81.3±22.8)、(78.5±21.5)和(82.2±20.6)g。比较三组之间手术时间、术中出血量、切除组织量、术后并发症等指标,以对比手术安全性;比较术前及术后3个月的Qmax、剩余尿量(RUV)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)等指标,以对比其临床疗效。结果:TURP组、TUVP组和联合组的手术成功率分别为98.3%(114/116)、98.4%(123/125)和99.3%(134/135)(P0.05);平均手术时间分别为(43.2±12.4)min、(55.3±14.5)min和(47.4±13.1)min(P0.05);平均出血量分别为(220.4±50.5)ml、(85.5±24.6)ml和(100.4±30.2)ml(P0.05);平均切除组织质量分别为(49.2±11.3)g、(52.7±13.3)g和(50.4±12.6)g(P0.05);经尿道前列腺电切综合征(TURS)发生率分别为2.6%(3/116)、0.8%(1/125)和0.7%(1/135)(P0.05);术后暂时性尿失禁发生率分别为1.7%(2/116)、4.8%(6/125)和1.5%(2/135)(P0.05);术后3个月尿道狭窄发生率分别为1.7%(2/116)、4.0%(5/125)和1.5%(2/135)(P0.05)。三组患者术后3个月的Q max均较术前明显增加(P0.05),术后IPSS、QOL、RUV均较术前明显下降(P0.05),三组之间各指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:TURP、TUVP单独或联合均为治疗BPH的有效方法,TURP联合TUVP治疗兼有两者的优点,切割速度快,止血彻底,安全高效,并发症少,是治疗BPH的更好选择。     

经尿道前列腺电切术及等离子电切术治疗重度BPH患者的疗效比较

目的:比较经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)及等离子电切术(PKRP)治疗重度BPH(前列腺体积70ml)的疗效及并发症。方法:回顾性分析80例(TURP 34例,PKRP 46例)重度BPH患者的临床资料。比较两组病例的手术时间、切除的腺体组织重量、术中失血量、术中转开放手术例数、持续膀胱冲洗时间、留置尿管时间、术后1、3、6个月的主观症状(IPSS、QOL)、客观评分(PVRU、Qmax、PSA)及并发症等。结果:TURP组和PKRP组手术时间、术中失血量、持续膀胱冲洗时间及留置尿管时间比较,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组术中所切除的前列腺腺体组织重量和术中转开放手术例数比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组术后发生二次出血的例数比较,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组术后发生暂时性尿失禁、泌尿系感染、尿道狭窄、膀胱颈挛缩和尿失禁的例数比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后1、3、6个月随访,两组IPSS、QOL、PVRU、Qmax和PSA均较术前明显改善(P0.05),但组间比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:对于前列腺体积70ml的重度BPH患者,TURP和PKRP均有明显的临床效果,特别是PKRP更具有术中出血少、安全性高、并发症少等优点。     

Comparison of long-term results of transurethral incision of the prostate with transurethral resection of the prostate, in patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy

One hundred patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) were randomized to transurethral incision (TUIP) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). The average prostate weight before operation was not more than 30.0 g. Indications for the operations were based on the disease history, physical examination, digital rectal examination, laboratory values, and pressure-flow examination. All operations were performed with patients under spinal anesthesia. TUIP was performed with a Collins knife, and TURP was performed with a resectoscope. Follow-up was performed 24 months after the operations. After treatment there were statistically significant daytime and nocturnal reduction in voiding frequencies of 2.9 and 1.7, respectively, after TUIP, and 2.0 and 1.5 after TURP. In both groups, there occurred significantly better maximal flow rate from 7.6 mL/s to 16.9 mL/s in group I and from 6.9 mL/s to 17.6 mL/s in group II. The mean values of linearized passive urethral resistance relation in both groups significantly decreased from 3.6 +/- 0.6 to 1.0 +/- 0.5 after TUIP and from 3.9 +/- 04 to 1.4 +/- 0.5 after TURP. The TUIP procedure is effective and safe for patients with a small number of complications.     

Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate

PURPOSE: We reviewed outcomes for men with a history of transurethral prostate resection who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 26, 1998 and December 2006, 3,061 men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution. A retrospective review showed that 119 had a history of transurethral prostate resection. These men were compared to randomized matched controls with regard to operative and postoperative outcomes. The matching criteria used to randomly select patients were clinical stage, preoperative prostate specific antigen and biopsy Gleason score. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD age in the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 66.2 +/- 5.6 and 60.7 +/- 7.0 years, respectively (p <0.01). Mean estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, pathological prostate volume and reoperation rate were statistically similar between the groups. Mean length of stay for the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 6.5 +/- 3.0 and 5.29 +/- 2.3 days, respectively (p <0.01). Mean operative time for the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 179 +/- 44 and 171 +/- 38 minutes, respectively (p = 0.02). Positive margins were seen in 21.8% and 12.6% of the patients with and without transurethral prostate resection, respectively (p = 0.02). A total of 64 complications were seen in patients with a history of transurethral prostate resection compared to 34 in those without such a history (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We report that patients with a history of transurethral prostate resection who undergo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy have worse outcomes with respect to operative time, length of stay, positive margin rate and overall complication rate. This subset of patients should be made aware of these potential risks before undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

经尿道前列腺电切术和汽化电切术并发症48例分析

目的 分析经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）与经尿道前列腺汽化电切术（TVP）术中、术后常见并发症的原因、预防及治疗，提高手术安全性和有效性。方法 回顾性分析1999年5月-2006年6月我院TURP和TVP术48例并发症患者的临床资料。结果 平均手术时间75min，平均切除组织41g。术中、术后出血20例，电切综合征（TURS）5例，暂时性尿失禁11例，膀胱颈部挛缩5例，尿道狭窄8例，尿路感染7例，膀胱穿孔1例。结论 TURP和TVP是良性前列腺增生症安全有效的外科治疗方法，术前详细采集病史，术中正确操作。术后对病人正确指导及处理可有效减少手术并发症。     

经尿道等离子前列腺汽化电切术与经尿道前列腺电切术的近期疗效比较

目的比较经尿道等离子前列腺汽化电切术（TUPKRP）与经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）的近期疗效。方法将前列腺增生（benign prostatic hyperplasia，BPH）患者随机分为两组，分别行TUPKRP和TURP，比较两组术前和术后6个月检查的各项指标并进行统计学分析。结果术前两组一般情况比较无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；术后6个月两组国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分、最大尿流率比术前均得到明显改善（P〈0．01）；术中输血量、电切综合征发生率、术后平均膀胱冲洗时间、置管时间和住院时间，TUPKRP组明显小于TURP组（P〈0．01）。结论TUPKRP治疗BPH具有与TURP近期疗效相似；术中并发症发生率及患者术后恢复时间明显少于TURP，有良好的应用前景。     

高危前列腺增生症经尿道隧道法电切的可行性

目的　探讨高危良性前列腺增生症经尿道隧道法电切术的可行性。方法　对 72 例高危前列腺增生症行经尿道隧道法切除部分前列腺,并观察术中、术后并发症及治疗效果。结果　72 例均手术成功,平均手术时间 40 min,无并发症。71 例症状改善,随访6~36月,排尿通畅;1例因膀胱逼尿肌功能减退,行永久性膀胱造瘘术。结论　经尿道隧道法前列腺部分切除术治疗高危前列腺增生症安全有效,是一种理想的治疗方法。     

两种经尿道前列腺切除术治疗良性前列腺增生症的疗效比较

目的比较经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）与经尿道双极等离子前列腺切除术（PKRP）治疗良性前列腺增生症（BPH）的优缺点。方法分别采用TURP（357例）、PKRP（326例）治疗BPH,观察两组患者手术前后国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOLS）、最大尿流率（MFR）、残余尿（RUV）的改善情况以及术后并发症的发生情况。结果两种术式患者术后IPSS、QOLS、MFR、RUV均得到显著改善,组间差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。对Ⅰ～Ⅱ度前列腺增生,两组术式手术时间无差异;对Ⅲ度前列腺增生,TURP组手术时间短于PKRP组（P〈0．01）。两组术式术中切除前列组织重量、术中出血及术后主要观察指标差异均无显著性。TURP组3例发生电切综合症,2例因前列腺包膜穿孔中转开放手术,而PKRP组无上述情况发生。PKRP组术后并发症少于TURP组。结论TURP及PKRP均为治疗BPH的有效手段,PKRP较之TURP术中更为安全,手术后并发症较少,但手术时间较长。     

经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术治疗高危前列腺增生症

目的探讨经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术(EURP)治疗高危前列腺增生症(BPH)的治疗效果。方法56例BPH患者,经个体化围手术期准备行经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术治疗,观察手术安全性及有效性。结果全部病人均顺利承受手术,随访3～6个月,最大尿流率由术前7．5ml／s上升至术后21ml／s,国际前列腺症状评分术前平均28分,术后3个月降至8分,剩余尿量从平均140ml降至35ml。结论经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术治疗高危前列腺增生症见效快,安全性好,并发症少。     

Safer transurethral resection of the prostate: coagulating intermittent cutting reduces hemostatic complications

PURPOSE: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still the gold standard for the surgical treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, the associated morbidity and blood loss remain concerns. A coagulating intermittent cutting (CIC) device with constant voltage pulses and controlled pulse intervals was recently developed. The impact of CIC on bleeding and blood transfusion rates as well as the occurrence of the TUR syndrome were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to July 2002, 271 consecutive patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent TURP with the CIC device. In addition to blood transfusion rates, serum hemoglobin and electrolytes were determined in all patients immediately before and after TURP. RESULTS: The mortality rate in the 271 patients subjected to TURP was 0.0%. Mean decrease in hemoglobin after TURP was 1.08 mg/dl. Intraoperative and postoperative blood transfusions were required in 7 patients (2.6%), and clinical signs of the transurethral resection syndrome were noted in 1.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Coagulating intermittent cutting dramatically improves the safety of TURP by decreasing intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, and the rate of blood transfusions. With this blood sparing device we anticipate a lower incidence of hemostatic complications from TURP.     

前列腺增生经尿道电切术近期出血的原因和处理

目的探讨经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）治疗前列腺增生术后近期出血的原因与处理方法。方法对本院12年来前列腺增生经尿道电切术后近期出血的52例患者进行回顾分析其原因及止血方法。结果出血的原因主要有患者高龄、高危等和在治疗中处理失当等。41例经保守治疗而好转,11例经保守治疗无效,麻醉后重新置入电切镜,冲洗血凝块,充分电凝、止血后好转。结论全面的术前分析、准确的术中和术后处理,是减少前列腺增生患者TURP术后出血的关键。     

合并组织学前列腺炎的良性前列腺增生患者TURP手术对下尿路症状的影响

目的:探讨合并组织学前列腺炎的良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者行经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)对下尿路症状的影响。方法:对2009年5月至2011年5月行TURP术后病理诊断证实为BPH的432例患者进行研究。剔除术前和术后合并有影响下尿路症状因素的病例,参照国际前列腺炎组织学分类诊断标准,分为A组:单纯BPH组(30例)、B组:合并轻度炎症组(55例)、C组:合并中度炎症组(31例)、D组:合并重度炎症组(28例)。采取国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)评估各组术前及术后1个月的下尿路症状,将得分进行统计学分析。结果:合并组织学前列腺炎患者399例,检出率为92.4%。其中轻度炎症组269例(67.4%)、中度炎症组86例(21.6%)、重度炎症组44例(11.0%)。术前各组IPSS评分为:A组(21.43±6.09)分、B组(21.75±5.97)分、C组(27.84±4.18)分、D组(31.00±2.92)分,仅A组和B组差异无统计学意义(P=1.000),其余各组间差异均有统计学意义(P值均<0.01)。术后各组IPSS评分为:A组(5.60±2.16)分、B组(7.36±2.77)分、C组(11.55±3.39)分、D组(16.89±3.37)分,各组间差异均有统计学意义(P值均<0.01)。手术治疗后各组IPSS评分均较术前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.01)。合并炎症的BPH患者的病理切片中浸润的炎性细胞几乎均为淋巴细胞。结论:BPH大都合并有组织学慢性前列腺炎。合并组织学炎症的BPH患者手术前和手术后的下尿路症状严重程度要高于无炎症的BPH患者,且与炎症分级程度呈正相关。对合并中、重度炎症患者,术后仍需积极运用药物控制下尿路症状。     

Safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of prostate glands up to 150 ml: a prospective comparative study with 1 year of followup

PURPOSE: We investigated the safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for prostate glands between 70 and 150 ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 113 patients treated with TURP for benign prostatic hyperplasia. A total of 57 patients with a prostate volume of less than 70 ml were assigned to group 1, while 56 with a prostate volume of between 70 and 150 ml were assigned to group 2. Preoperative parameters considered in each patient were prostate volume, International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), urinary flow rate measurement (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR). Operative time, resected tissue weight and all complications were recorded. All patients were evaluated 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data on the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Each group achieved significant improvement in I-PSS, Qmax and PVR. Operative time was significantly longer in group 2 but the complication rate was similar in the 2 groups. Group 2 resulted in better improvements in Qmax and I-PSS. At 1 year of followup PVR was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2. Multivariate analysis revealed that only age was a significant independent predictor of complications, and only age and initial Qmax were independent predictive variables of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: TURP for large prostate glands is a safe procedure without showing a different complication rate compared with TURP for recommended volumes. Patients with a baseline prostate volume of greater than 70 ml seem to achieve better improvement in obstruction and symptoms.     

经尿道等离子体前列腺剜除术与经尿道等离子体前列腺切除术的对比研究

目的比较经尿道等离子体前列腺剜除术（PKEP）与经尿道等离子体前列腺切除（PKRP）近期疗效。方法将具有手术指征的120例前列腺增生症（BPH）患者随机分为两组,分别行PKEP和PKRP,监测、记录患者围手术期和术后6个月复查的有关指标,对所测指标进行统计学分析。结果术前两组一般情况比较,差别无显著性（P〉O．05）;术中出血量、手术时间、术后平均膀胱冲洗时间、置管时间和住院时间,PKEP组明显少于PKRP组（P〈O．05）;切除腺体重量,PKEP组（（31．6±11．5）g3明显多于PKRP组[（19．7土10．4）g3（P〈O．05）;术后6个月,两组患者残余尿量、最大尿流率均比术前得到明显改善（P〈O．05）。结论PKEP治疗BPH具有与PKRP相近的近期疗效;患者术中并发症发生率、恢复时间PKEP明显少于PKRP,是目前有望替代PKRP的一种新方法。     

前列腺腔内术后尿道狭窄原因及处理

目的探讨前列腺患者腔内手术后尿道狭窄的原因及处理方法。方法经尿道前列腺汽化电切术后尿道狭窄32例，术前均行膀胱镜检未见尿道狭窄，术后出现排尿困难，经尿道探杆检查、膀胱镜检及尿道造影明确诊断为尿道狭窄。其中14例为尿道外口狭窄，9例为尿道球膜部狭窄，4例为阴茎部尿道狭窄缘于尿道扩张造成，5例为前列腺尿道部疤痕狭窄。18例行尿道扩张治愈，7例行尿道内切开加尿道扩张治愈，4例前列腺部尿道狭窄再次电切治愈，3例行尿道成形术。结果32例治疗后能维持通畅的排尿，其中4例患者须定期尿扩随访。结论经尿道前列腺汽化电切术后尿道狭窄主要发生于尿道外口及前尿道，与器械、留置尿管、感染及尿道扩张等因素相关。治疗方法主要为尿道扩张及尿道内切开，尤应重视术后的尿扩随访。