A 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate with standard transurethral prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy and durability of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) with standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 104 patients admitted from the waiting list for surgery for BPH were randomized to either TUVP (52 patients, mean age 67.5 years) or TURP (52 patients, mean age 70.2 years); 51, 47 and 40 patients in each arm completed 1, 2 and 3 years of follow-up, respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and during the follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the associated quality-of-life score (QoL), postvoid residual volume (PVR) and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax). RESULTS: Both groups had comparable mean IPSS, QoL, Qmax and PVR at baseline. The mean (SD) values for TUVP and TURP, respectively, at 3 years showed a significant and maintained improvement in IPSS, at 4.1 (3.3) and 7.1 (6.2) (P = 0.01), in QoL, at 1.0 (0.9) and 1.6 (1.4) (P = 0.04), and in Qmax, at 22.2 (8.5) and 18 (7.1) mL/s (P = 0.02), with decreases in PVR of 30 (38) and 21.9 (26.2) mL (P = 0.27). The re-operation rate in each group was 4% during the first year, 4% during the second year and 5% during the third year. After surgery and at 1, 2 and 3 years of follow-up, impotence was reported in 17% of the TUVP group and 11% of the TURP group (P = 0.49), and retrograde ejaculation in 72% of the TUVP group and 89% of the TURP group (P = 0.47). CONCLUSION: The 3-year follow-up results confirm that TUVP is as effective as standard TURP in the treatment of moderate-sized BPH. The long-term side-effects and complications were comparable and the initial improvement was maintained over 3 years in most patients in both groups.     

Efficacy and safety of prostate vaporesection using a 120-W 2-μm continuous-wave Tm:YAG laser (RevoLix 2) in patients on continuous oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy

The aim of our current study was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of vaporesection using a 120-W Tm:YAG laser (Revolix Duo) in patients with BPH receiving systemic anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy. Between April 2010 and November 2011, a total of 76 patients using oral antiplatelet or anticoagulant (OA) agents affected by LUTS for BPH were underwent thulium vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) using a 120-W 2-μm CW Tm:YAG laser and evaluated at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Of these, in 41 patients (group A) was performed vaporesection while receiving OA therapy. In 35 patients (group B), OA agents were discontinued 10 days before surgery. There were no significant differences in average vaporesection times, catheterization time, or hospital stay. There was no significant change in serum sodium level before and immediately after vaporesection in either group. Significant improvements compared to baseline were observed at each postoperative assessment in both groups for Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QoL. More specifically, the IPSS score improved from 21.7 at baseline to 5.2 at 6 months in group A and from 20.7 to 4.5 in group B. At 6 months, Qmax increased 226 and 190 % for the 2 groups, respectively. The PVR decreased from 119 at baseline to 11 mL at 6 months in group A and from 125 to 11 mL in group B. ThuVARP is a safe and efficient procedure for patients with BPH, refractory to pharmacotherapy, who require active antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy.     

Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate: is it any better than standard transurethral prostatectomy? 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: At present, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is regarded as the most effective treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). In the present randomized study, we compared TURP with transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 77 BPH patients who underwent operation between 1996 and 2001 were included in the study, 40 who had TURP with a standard resection loop and 32 who had TUVP with a Spike loop. All available patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 month and 3 months after the operation (N=73), and 5 years after the operation (N=44). The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), sexual function questionnaire, uroflowmetry (Qmax), postvoiding residual urine volume (PVR), and transrectal ultrasonography were used. In addition, postoperative serum sodium concentration, serum hematocrit, duration of catheterization, and operation time were compared. RESULTS: In the TUVP group, the mean IPSS decreased from 17.3 to 6.5, the PVR from 88 to 35 mL, and the prostate volume from 39 to 24 cc, while the Qmax increased from 6.3 to 12.9 mL/sec and the average flow from 2.6 to 7.9 mL/sec. In the TURP group, the mean IPSS decreased from 17.6 to 6.1, the PVR from 95 to 38 mL, and the prostate volume from 38 to 23 cc, while the Qmax increased from 5.9 to 13.2 mL/sec and the average flow from 2.4 to 8.3 mL/sec. Thus, significant improvements were observed in both groups, and the differences between them 5 years later were not significant P>0.05). Postoperative serum hemoglobin and hematocrit were significantly lower in the TURP group (P>0.05). However, no difference was seen in serum sodium concentrations. Also, there was no difference in the duration of the operations. The catheterization period was 22+/-5.7 hours in the TUVP group, while it was 75.7+/-10.5 hours in the TURP group (P<0.001). When morbidities observed during follow-up were evaluated, no significant difference was seen. CONCLUSIONS: The TUVP procedure is as effective as TURP with similar morbidity. The advantages of TUVP are that the urethral catheter is withdrawn earlier, hospitalization is shorter, and bleeding is less. Its disadvantage is that tissue cannot be sampled for histologic diagnosis. In our opinion, in order to exploit the advantages of this technique, TUVP should be preferred in elderly patients without any suspicion of prostate cancer for whom bleeding during operation is a source of risk.     

钬激光前列腺剜除术与前列腺汽化电切术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较

目的 比较经尿道前列腺汽化电切术与经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗前列腺增生症 的疗效。 方法 将160例前列腺增生症( benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)患者随机分为两组,每组80例,分别用 TUVP 及HoLEP 治疗 。比较两种术式 的手术时间、手术出血量、 膀胱冲洗时间 、住院时间、并发症及近期疗效等指标 。结果 两组患者术后国际前列腺症状评分 （IPSS）、生活质量评分（ QOL）、最大尿流率和残余尿量均较术前明显改善,但两组上述指标间比较差异无显著性差异 。HoLEP组术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗时间、住院时间明显短于TUVP组;并发症发 生率低于TUVP组。 结论 TUVP 及HoLEP 治疗前列腺增生症均有效;HoLEP的手术安全性优于TUVP。     

Photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy for acute urinary retention in China

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of photoselective laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP) in the treatment of patients with acute urinary retention (AUR) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients (mean age 72 +/- 5 years, range 65-89) with AUR because of BPH were treated with a prospective trial of PVP with the potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser. The treatment outcome was evaluated with subjective and objective tests at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after PVP using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), disease-specific quality of life (QoL) score, postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume, and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax). The International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire and a self-designed ejaculatory questionnaire were completed at different follow-up times to determine patient satisfaction and changes in sexual function. RESULTS: After preliminary urine drainage and adequate preoperative preparation, PVP was performed and bladder outlet obstruction was effectively relieved. The mean prostate volume was 62.5 +/- 11.7 cc, and the mean residual volume with retention was 650 mL (range 240-1200 mL). Mean operative time was 28.6 +/- 5.7 minutes. Mean catheterization duration was 5.6 days (range 3-14 d). There was significant subjective improvement of symptoms and objective improvement in urinary flow rates at 12 months. The mean IPSS and QoL score decreased significantly (P < 0.05). Mean PVR volume also decreased. The mean Qmax was 16.2 +/- 4.6 mL/sec after treatment. Only two patients had recurrent urinary retention during follow-up. There were no intraoperative or postoperative adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The early clinical results suggest that the PVP is a promising safe, effective, and less-invasive treatment with minimal morbidity for patients with urine retention secondary to BPH.     

Feedback microwave thermotherapy with the ProstaLund Compact Device for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia: 12-month response rates and complications

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the ProstaLund Compact Device in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 38 consecutive patients with a mean age of 72.6+/-8.2 years, 19 with an indwelling catheter, underwent transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) with the ProstaLund Compact Device. Pretreatment evaluation included transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), urodynamics, and cystoscopy for all patients and flow rate (Qmax), postvoiding residual urine volume (PVR), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and quality-of-life (QoL) assessment for those without a catheter. The mean prostate volume was 63.5+/-30 cc. The Qmax, IPSS, and QoL studies were repeated at 3, 6, and 12 months, while urodynamics, cystoscopy, and TRUS were repeated at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: The treatment lasted a mean of 43.1+/-17.1 minutes, achieved a maximal intraprostatic temperature of 58.7+/-7.2 degrees C, and destroyed 18.4+/-14.3 g of prostatic tissue. Twelve months post-treatment, for the patients without a catheter preoperatively, the IPSS was improved from 21.5+/-6.3 to 6.5+/-3.1 (P<0.001), Qmax from 7.2+/-3.1 mL/sec to 18.1+/-7.4 mL/sec (P<0.001), detrusor pressure at Qmax from 87.5+/-15 cm H2O to 48.4+/-16.4 cm H2O (P<0.001), and PVR from 113.2+/-78.2 mL to 34.6+/-36.7 mL (P<0.01). The good-response rates for IPSS (or=50% improvement), Qmax (>or=15 mL/sec or >or=50% improvement), PVR (<50 mL or >or=50% decrease), and QoL (相似文献   

Randomized trial of safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate using contact laser versus electrocautery

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of contact laser ablation of the prostate (CLAP) vs. transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). During a 1-year period (1995-1996), 37 males 50 years of age or older were randomized to either CLAP using Nd:YAG laser treatment or TURP. Patients with Qmax <15 mL/s, American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score >12, and postvoid residual (PVR) >125 mL were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they had prior surgical treatment for BPH or known conditions that could affect bladder function. Comparisons of preoperative and postoperative symptom scores, Qmax, PVR, total catheter time, hospital stay, complications, and hematocrit changes were performed. A 2:1 randomization was used, which resulted in 26 CLAP and 12 TURP patients. One-year follow-up data were available for 21 CLAP and 7 TURP patients. The mean prostate volume, age, AUA symptom score, and Qmax were not significantly different between the two arms. Significant differences in favor of CLAP were shorter catheter time (27.2 vs. 40.4 hours; p < .05) and shorter hospital stays (28.5 vs. 60.0 hours; p < .05). The only other significant difference between the two arms was a lower AUA symptom score in favor of TURP at 1 year (4.7 vs. 8.4; p < .05). Qmax, PVR, and postoperative hematocrit were similar between the groups. The only complications included recatheterizations, which occurred more frequently in the TURP patients (25% vs. 14%). CLAP appears to be slightly less effective in AUA symptom score reduction; however, it is equally safe and is superior for shortening catheter time and hospital stay compared to TURP.     

Resistance index in benign prostatic hyperplasia using power doppler imaging and clinical outcomes after transurethral vaporization of the prostate

BACKGROUND: Using power Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS), we investigate the change of resistance index (RI) before and after transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients. METHODS: In all, 49 patients underwent transrectal PDUS before receiving TUVP, three were excluded because of cancer and three could not be followed up. The remaining 43 were enrolled in the present study. Patients were assessed before and 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery, giving a mean duration of follow-up of 9.1 months. International prostate symptom scores (IPSS), quality of life (QOL) scores, postvoiding residual urine volumes (PVR) and maximum urinary flow rates (Qmax) were evaluated and total prostatic volume (TPV) and RI were measured using PDUS. RESULTS: Resistance index ranged from 0.64 to 0.91. The postoperative parameters except for RI, such as TPV, PVR, IPSS and QOL scores improved significantly at the follow-up assessment after surgery. The elevated RI decreased significantly 1, 3 and 6 months after the treatment. Resistance index significantly decreased after TUVP and IPSS and other urodymamics parameters improved. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggested that RI could evaluate the severity of BPH and the degree of intraprostatic pressure or bladder outlet obstruction.     

经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗大体积良性前列腺增生

目的:评价经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)治疗大体积良性前列腺增生(BPH)的价值。方法:BPH患者60例,前列腺重量均>100g,分为HoLEP组(n=32)和耻骨上经膀胱前列腺切除术组(n=28),比较两组手术时间、术中出血量和术后膀胱冲洗时间、导尿管留置时间、住院时间;术后3个月随访,比较两组患者IPSS、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)、剩余尿量(PVR)等指标的变化。结果:HoLEP组与耻骨上经膀胱前列腺切除术组比较手术时间有所延长(P<0.01),但术中出血量减少(P<0.01),膀胱冲洗时间、导尿管留置时间、术后住院时间明显缩短(P<0.01)。术后3个月,两组IPSS、QOL、Qmax、PVR较自身术前显著改善(P<0.01),组间比较差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论:HoLEP治疗大体积BPH具有与开放性前列腺切除术相似的疗效,同时手术安全性高、患者痛苦小、术后恢复快,是一种更适合于大体积BPH治疗的手术方式。     

经尿道前列腺汽化电切术治疗前列腺增生症

目的探讨经尿道前列腺汽化电切术治疗良性前列腺增生（BPH）的疗效。方法采用经尿道前列腺汽化切割并电切术（TUVP）治疗前列腺增生患者215例,年龄58～93岁,平均69-4岁,病程1个月～8年,术前IPSS评分平均为30．2分。结果所有手术均取得成功,无一例转为开放手术,平均手术时间50min,术中无输血,未出现严重的并发症。术后随访1年以上67例,其中短暂尿失禁8例,经保守治疗后均于1个月内恢复。术后IPSS评分平均8．6分;平均最大尿流率（Qmax）18．8mVs,与术前比较差异均有统计学意义。结论将电切与汽化切割相结合行经尿道前列腺切除是一种微创、安全性高且疗效确切的BPH治疗方法。     

Is transurethral vaporization a remake of transurethral resection of the prostate?

PURPOSE: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still the gold standard method to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) is compared with the transurethral resection of benign prostatic hyperplasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a 10-month period, 78 patients presenting with moderate and severe symptomatic BPH were randomized into two groups. A total of 38 patients underwent TURP, and 40 men underwent TUVP. The protocol included urinary flow rate (Qmax), symptomatology evaluated by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (I-PSS), and an ultrasonographic estimate of the postvoiding residual volume (PVR). The TUVP was carried out using a regular loop with the electrical source set at 250 to 300 W in the pure cutting mode. The same technique was used in the TURP, but the electrosurgical unit was set at 50 to 80 W for cutting and 50 W for hemostasis. The mean follow-up was 17 months (range 11-23 months). RESULTS: The data showed significant improvement in the symptom score, maximum flow rate, and postvoiding residual urine volume after treatment (P<0.01) in both groups. Comparing the symptom score, there was no difference between the two techniques (P = 0.88), the same occurring with the PVR (P = 0.78). However, the Qmax was higher after TURP (P = 0.02). The amount of tissue resected showed no statistical difference between the two techniques (P>0.05). Operative time, postoperative irrigation, catheter removal, and hospital stay were better with TUVP (P = 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.003) when we compared the occurrence of retrograde ejaculation with TURP (32%) and TUVP (65%) The TUVP using a regular loop, in addition to the advantage of the equipment and technique already being familiar to urologists, is efficient and reduces capital expenditure. CONCLUSION: The TUVP is a remake of TURP, with higher energy offering better results.     

钬激光前列腺剜除术与电切术安全性及疗效比较

目的 比较并探讨钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)和传统经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)的安全性及疗效,旨在为良性前列腺增生症的临床治疗提供理论依据.方法 回顾性分析哈尔滨医科大学附属第四医院2015年1月-2016年1月收治的349例良性前列腺增生症患者的病例资料,并将其随机分成两组.其中172例患者选择行钬激光前列腺剜除术,另外177例患者选择行传统经尿道前列腺电切术.比较两组患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后导尿管留置时间、术后住院天数以及术后并发症(尿失禁、膀胱痉挛、出血)的发病率.随访3个月,重新评估IPSS、QOL、Qmax指标并比较疗效.结果 与传统经尿道前列腺电切术组相比,钬激光前列腺剜除术组患者的手术时间明显缩短、术中出血量及术后住院天数显著降低(P＜0.05),术后导尿管留置时间[钬激光前列腺剜除术组:(2.4±0.5)d;传统经尿道前列腺电切术组:(5.7±0.6)d,P＜0.05].明显减少,术中切除前列腺重量明显增加,术后并发症的发病率[钬激光前列腺剜除术组:5/172(2.9％);传统经尿道前列腺电切术组:19/177(10.7％),P＜0.01]显著下降.3个月后,两组术后PVR、IPSS、QOL以及Qmax较术前相比明显改善(P＜0.01),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 钬激光前列腺剜除术与传统经尿道前列腺电切术相比疗效相当,但安全性更高.钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗临床前列腺增生症具有重要意义.     

Thulium:YAG-Vaporesektion der Prostata

Objectives

Laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia has been introduced. The thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) laser combines the advantages of established laser systems. This study reports the preliminary results of vaporesection of the prostate, using this 2-µm continuous wave (cw) laser.

Material and Methods

A total of 54 consecutive patients were treated with the Tm:YAG laser. The outcomes measured were resection time, catheter time, improvement in urinary flow rate (Q_max), and post-voiding residual urine (PVR). International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life Index (QoL) were recorded.

Results

The mean age was 61 years. Mean prostate volume was 30.3 cc. Average resection time was 52 min. Catheter time was 1.7 days. Qmax significantly improved from 4.2 to 20.9 ml on average. PVR decreased from 86 to 16 ml. IPSS and QoL score improved from 19.8 to 6.5 and 4 to 1, respectively. No patient required re-hospitalization. Transfusions were not necessary.

Conclusions

These preliminary results indicate that Tm:YAG vaporesection of the prostate is safe and efficient. The 18-month follow-up data showed major improvement in voiding symptoms and QoL. Longer follow-up is needed to prove durability of these promising results.     

经尿道选择性绿激光汽化术与前列腺汽化电切除术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较

目的 比较经尿道选择性绿激光前列腺汽化术（PVP）与前列腺汽化电切除术（TUVP）治疗良性前列腺增生（BPH）的安全性及疗效。方法 随机采用PVP与TUVP两种手术方式治疗BPH患者163例,其中PVP组105例,TUVP组58例。对两组患者的国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、术中出血量、手术时间、冲洗液清亮时间、留置尿管时间、最大尿流率、术后并发症等进行比较。结果 两组手术前后IPSS、QOL、Qmax、剩余尿量（RUV）比较均显著改善（P〈0．05）,但两组之间症状改善差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。TUVP组手术时间平均（37±15）min,PVP组则为平均（45±28）min,TUVP手术操作时间少于PVP,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。PVP组术中出血量少、拔除尿管早,优于TUVP组（P〈0,05）。术后随访6个月两组前列腺症状评分及最大尿流率疗效相同。TUVP组术后血尿明显（41．4％）,需膀胱冲洗,而PVP术后尿路刺激症状明显（55．2％,P〈0．05）。结论 PVP手术是一种手术过程非常安全、并发症少,能达到与TUVP完全相同治疗效果的手术方式。     

A multicenter retrospective study of transurethral prostate split for benign prostate hyperplasia

BackgroundTransurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) is effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, there is still a lack of research focusing on the optimal target population for TUSP. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of TUSP in patients with different prostate volumes or ages.MethodsThe study was a multicenter retrospective study. The outcomes of TUSP in BPH patients with different prostate volumes or different ages were compared. A total of 439 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to prostate volume, with a cut-off value of 50 mL. Similarly, the cut-off value for the age groups was 70 years. Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 73.4 years, and the mean prostate volume was 51.2 mL. At 12-month follow-up after TUSP treatment, the patients’ International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) scores, and postvoid residual (PVR) volumes decreased significantly, while peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) increased significantly. Intraoperative hemoglobin (Hb) reduction was significantly lower in the small volume group than in the large volume group. The incidence of postoperative urinary urgency and transient incontinence was lower in the small volume group. IPSS score, PVR, and Qmax in the small volume group showed more remarkable changes at several time points compared to the preoperative period. Postoperative pain scores were higher in the small volume group than in the large volume group. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of long-term complications. The younger group showed greater variation in PVR and Qmax at some time points but less variation in QoL than the older group.ConclusionsTUSP is overall safe and effective in treating BPH. This study showed differences in the outcomes of TUSP in treating different prostate volumes or ages of BPH patients. The optimal surgical approach for BPH patients might be selected clinically based on a combination of prostate volume or patient age.     

A randomized trial comparing thulium laser resection to standard transurethral resection of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: four-year follow-up results

Objective

To report the results of a randomized prospective trial with a 4-year follow-up, comparing the thulium laser resection of the prostate-tangerine technique (TmLRP-TT) with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods

BPH patients (96) were randomized for surgical treatment with TmLRP-TT (47) or TURP (49). All patients were assessed pre-operatively and followed at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months post-operatively. Several parameters related to BPH were collected at each follow-up, including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum urinary flow rates (Qmax), and post-void residual volume (PVR). All late complications were also recorded.

Results

Dramatic improvement in micturition parameters was observed after TmLRP-TT compared with pre-operative values. Median IPSS decreased 75.6 % in the subsequent 12 months and 61.2 % in 48 months, while median QoL decreased by 80.4 and 59.1 %, respectively. Compared with baseline, numerical values of Qmax increased 1.07-fold and those of PVR decreased 73.1 % in the fourth year. Moreover, all micturition parameters in the TmLRP-TT group were similar to those of TURP patients at every annual assessment. Some late complications after the operations were also observed: one patient suffered from urethral strictures and one from bladder-neck contractures after TmLRP-TT. Re-operation rates were equal in the two groups.

Conclusions

Micturition remained stable after TmLRP-TT during the 4-year follow-up. Outcomes compared favourably with TURP, with lower peri-operative morbidity and equally low occurrence of late adverse effects. Thus, TmLRP-TT can be an available option for BPH patients, especially older, high-risk patients.     

GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia/lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with different post-void residual urine

The purpose of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia/lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH/LUTS) in patients with different post-void residual urine (PVR). BPH/LUTS patients treated with PVP from January 2014 to January 2016 were enrolled in the present study. All patients were divided into PVR?>?50, 50?≤?PVR?<?400, and PVR?≥?400 ml groups, and standard general and urological methods for BPH/LUTS were carried out. PVP surgery was performed, and the follow-up outcome was investigated 6 months after surgery. A total of 429 patients were included, and there were no significant differences in comorbid diseases or habits among the three groups. The maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) differed significantly among the groups (P?<?0.001), while patients in the PVR?<?50 ml group had higher maximum detrusor pressure (Pdet.max) level than the other two groups (P?<?0.001). Patients in 50?≤?PVR?<?400 (P?<?0.001) and PVR?≥?400 (P?<?0.001) ml groups were more likely to develop detrusor underactivity than those in the PVR?<?50 ml group. All patients were treated with PVP, and there were no severe complications requiring rehospitalization or reoperation except nine designed re-treatments. Follow-up data of 387 patients were available. Significant improvement in outcome parameters (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], Qmax, and PVR) was observed in comparison with baseline measurements for the three groups. PVP significantly improved the IPSS, Qmax, and PVR in patients with different PVR; PVP is a safe and effective procedure for BPH/LUTS patients.     

前列腺增生经尿道汽化切割与电切术的疗效比较

目的 :比较经尿道前列腺汽化切割 (TUVP)与电切术 (TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生 (BPH)病人的疗效。　方法 :2 0 6例BPH病人 (术前估计前列腺重量≤ 6 0 g)被随机分成TUVP(97例 )和TURP(10 9例 ) 2组 ,对病人进行为期 12～ 34(平均 2 0 )个月的随访。　结果 :2组术后第 12、2 4个月国际前列腺症状评分 (I PSS)均较术前下降 (P<0 .0 1) ,膀胱残余尿 (PVR)均较术前减少 (P <0 .0 1) ,最大尿流率 (Qmax)均较术前升高 (P <0 .0 1)。　结论 :TUVP和TURP对增生≤ 6 0g的BPH病人均有良好的治疗作用。TUVP较TURP能缩短手术时间和术后置管时间     

A prospective randomized controlled trial of hybrid laser treatment or transurethral resection of the prostate, with a 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcome after hybrid laser treatment of the prostate, combining potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) and Nd:YAG lasers, with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare laser treatment and TURP. The hybrid laser treatment technique involved performing initial 30 W KTP vaporizing bladder neck incisions and prostatotomies followed by a 'free-paint' application of 60 W Nd:YAG coagulation energy. Patients were re-assessed after 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year, using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and uroflowmetry. TURP was conducted using conventional methods. RESULTS: In all, 204 patients were randomized into the study; at 6 weeks there were significant differences between the groups for the IPSS (12.4 vs 9.1, P=0.001) and maximum urinary flow rates (16.1 vs 20.8 mL/S, P<0. 001) in favour of the TURP group. At 6 months and one year this difference had disappeared. Similar numbers of patients in each group complained of bothersome postoperative urinary symptoms (23% vs 19%). Blood transfusions (5% vs none) and urethral strictures (9% vs 2%) were more common after TURP, whereas more early infective complications occurred after hybrid laser treatment (24% vs 5%). Only one patient in each group required re-operation because of poor resolution of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: At one year, hybrid KTP/Nd:YAG laser treatment of the prostate was equivalent to TURP in the improvements in IPSS, maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine.     

2μm激光治疗小体积前列腺增生疗效观察

目的 探讨2 μm激光汽化切除技术联合2 μm激光膀胱颈内切开治疗小体积良性前列腺增生（BPH）患者的疗效和安全性.方法 45例体积≤40 mLBPH患者,采用经尿道2 μm激光汽化切除增生前列腺联合2μm激光膀胱颈切开.观察术中出血情况、手术时间、术后尿管留置时间、手术并发症,比较手术前后患者国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）及残余尿量（PVR）等指标差异.结果 45例患者均顺利完成手术.输血2例;手术前后血电解质及血红蛋白浓度差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;平均手术时间（80±15）min;术后留置尿管4~6d.术后随访2~12个月,所有患者均未发生尿道狭窄,1例术后排尿困难改善不明显者给予留置导尿管1月后成功拔除尿管.IPSS评分及QOL评分分别从（24.2±5.4）分和（4.9±0.2）分降至（7.5±1.6）分和（2.3±0.3）分;Qmax由术前（7.1±0.5）mL/s升至（18.2±1.6）mL/s;PVR由术前（82 ± 1.2）mL下降至术后（15.3±3.4）mL,手术前后比较差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 2 μm激光汽化切除技术联合2 μm激光膀胱颈内切开治疗小体积BPH安全有效.