Montorsi Francesco, Naspro Richard, Salonia Andrea, Suardi Nazareno, Briganti Alberto, Zanoni Matteo, Valenti Sergio, Vavassori Ivano, Rigatti Patrizio
Department of Urology, University Vita-Salute, Scientific Institute Hospital San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1926-9. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000140501.68841.a1.
To our knowledge we report the first multicenter, prospective, randomized study comparing holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) and transurethral prostate resection (TURP) for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia.
From January to October 2002, 100 consecutive patients with symptomatic obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized at 2 centers to surgical treatment with HoLEP (52 in group 1) or TURP (48 in group 2). Patients in the 2 groups were preoperatively assessed by scoring subjective symptoms questionnaires. Preoperative and perioperative parameters were also evaluated, the latter at 1, 6 and 12 months of followup.
At baseline all patients had obstruction (Schäfer grade greater than 2). At the 1, 6 and 12-month followups no statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of urodynamic findings and subjective symptom scoring. In the HoLEP group mean total time in the operating room +/- SD was significantly longer than for TURP (74 +/- 19.5 vs 57 +/- 15 minutes, p < 0.05), while catheterization time (31 +/- 13 vs 57.78 +/- 17.5 minutes, p < 0.001 and hospital stay (59 +/- 19.9 vs 85.8 +/- 18.9 hours, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the HoLEP group. Transient stress and urge incontinence were more common in the HoLEP group, although at the 12-month followup results were comparable. The overall complication rate was comparable in the 2 groups. Erectile function was also maintained in the followup period from baseline in each group, as expected.
HoLEP and TURP were equally effective for relieving obstruction and lower urinary tract symptoms. HoLEP was associated with shorter catheterization time and hospital stay. At 1 year of followup complications were similar in the 2 groups.
据我们所知,我们报告了第一项多中心、前瞻性、随机对照研究,比较钬激光剜除术(HoLEP)和经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)治疗梗阻性良性前列腺增生症的效果。
2002年1月至10月,在2个中心对100例有症状的梗阻性良性前列腺增生症患者进行连续随机分组,其中52例接受HoLEP手术治疗(第1组),48例接受TURP手术治疗(第2组)。两组患者术前均通过主观症状问卷评分进行评估。还评估了术前和围手术期参数,后者在随访的1、6和12个月时进行评估。
基线时所有患者均存在梗阻(Schäfer分级大于2级)。在1、6和12个月的随访中,两组在尿动力学检查结果和主观症状评分方面未观察到统计学上的显著差异。HoLEP组在手术室的平均总时间±标准差显著长于TURP组(74±19.5分钟对57±15分钟,p<0.05),而HoLEP组的导尿时间(31±13分钟对57.78±17.5分钟,p<0.001)和住院时间(59±19.9小时对85.8±18.9小时,p<0.001)显著缩短。HoLEP组短暂性压力性和急迫性尿失禁更为常见,尽管在12个月随访时结果相当。两组的总体并发症发生率相当。正如预期的那样,每组随访期间勃起功能均从基线水平得以维持。
HoLEP和TURP在缓解梗阻和下尿路症状方面同样有效。HoLEP与较短的导尿时间和住院时间相关。随访1年时,两组并发症相似。