Department of Urology, Saitama Municipal Hospital, Saitama, Japan.
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E864-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11381.x. Epub 2012 Sep 3.
Study Type--Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Transurethral enucleation with bipolar (TUEB) has been widely adopted as an alternative to standard TURP, although the surgical technique, efficacy and safety of TUEB have not been described so far. The present study provides illustrations of the TUEB technique, as well as peri-operative, 6-month and 12-month follow-up results of TUEB from a retrospective review of a single-institution experience comparing the efficacy and safety of TUEB and transurethral resection in saline for managing BPH.
• To illustrate the transurethral enucleation with bipolar (TUEB) technique and compare the efficacy and safety of TUEB and transurethral resection in saline (TURis) for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
• A retrospective review of a single-institution experience of 110 consecutive TUEB or TURis between 2008 and 2011 at our hospital was performed aiming to compare the efficacy and safety of TUEB and TURis for managing BPH (55 patients in each group). • Peri-operative data included operating time, resected tissue weight, changes in haemoglobin, duration of catheterization, hospital stay and early complications. • Postoperative outcomes included 6- and 12-month postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and Quality of Life (QoL) score, uroflowmetry findings, change in serum prostate-specific antigen level and all late complications in the two groups.
• Both groups were well matched for age, preoperative prostate volume, IPSS, QoL and uroflowmetry findings. • The change in haemoglobin at postoperative day 1 in the TUEB group was significantly less than in the TURis group (1.08 vs 1.60 g/dL; P < 0.001). • Catheterization time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the TUEB group than in the TURis group and the mean retrieved tissue weight in the TUEB group was larger than that in the TURis group (41.3 vs 31.7 g; P = 0.007). • Patients in the two arms had comparable improvements in postoperative IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate and postvoid residual urine volume. • The rates of complications were equally low with each procedure.
• TUEB is superior to TURis, with less bleeding, as well as decreased catheter time and hospital stay, although showing equivalent efficacy at 12 months of follow-up.
• 阐述经尿道双极前列腺剜除术(TUEB)的技术,并比较 TUEB 与经尿道前列腺电切术生理盐水灌注(TURis)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效和安全性。
• 对我院 2008 年至 2011 年期间 110 例连续接受 TUEB 或 TURis 的患者进行回顾性单中心回顾分析,旨在比较 TUEB 和 TURis 治疗 BPH 的疗效和安全性(每组 55 例患者)。• 围手术期数据包括手术时间、切除组织重量、血红蛋白变化、导尿管留置时间、住院时间和早期并发症。• 术后结果包括两组患者术后 6 个月和 12 个月的国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)和生活质量(QoL)评分、尿流率测定结果、血清前列腺特异性抗原水平变化以及两组患者的所有晚期并发症。
• 两组患者的年龄、术前前列腺体积、IPSS、QoL 和尿流率测定结果均匹配良好。• TUEB 组术后第 1 天血红蛋白的变化明显低于 TURis 组(1.08 对 1.60 g/dL;P<0.001)。• TUEB 组导尿管留置时间和住院时间明显短于 TURis 组,TUEB 组平均切除组织重量大于 TURis 组(41.3 对 31.7 g;P=0.007)。• 两组患者术后 IPSS、QoL、最大尿流率和残余尿量均有相似程度的改善。• 两种手术方式的并发症发生率同样较低。
• TUEB 与 TURis 相比,术中出血较少,导尿管留置时间和住院时间较短,而在 12 个月随访时疗效相当。