Olcese S P, Derosa R, Kern S Q, Lustik M B, Sterbis J R, McMann L P
Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Department of Clinical Investigation, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014 Sep;17(3):227-32. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2014.13. Epub 2014 Apr 15.
Large multicenter studies comparing outcomes between TURP and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) are sparse, with no studies having compared the influence of trainee involvement on these outcomes. Our objectives were to assess 30-day outcomes after TURP and PVP with respect to trainee involvement using an independent national surgical database.
Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data (2005-2011), 7893 men were identified who underwent TURP or PVP. Regression models were constructed to assess associations between surgical approach, risk-adjusted morbidity and individual complications. Relationships between operative approach, operative duration and duration of stay were also examined and subdivided based upon trainee level.
Of 7893 patients, 4950 (62.7%) underwent TURP and 2943 (37.3%) underwent PVP. TURP patients were older, more likely to have diabetes, cancer, history of steroid use and preoperative transfusion compared with PVP patients, who were more likely to have coronary artery disease or bleeding disorders. Risk-adjusted overall morbidity was similar; however, PVP was associated with less pneumonia (0.2% vs 0.5%, P<0.015), bleeding requiring transfusion (0.5% vs 1.8%, P<0.001) and return to the operating room (1.5% vs 2.2%, P<0.022). PVP patients also had shorter length of stay (0.8 vs 2.1 days, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in outcomes when a trainee was involved. Operative duration was similar for TURP and PVP when performed by an attending alone (52 vs 52 min, P<0.001), but was longer with trainee involvement, regardless of post-graduate year (PGY) level (P<0.001). Comparison of operative duration among trainee subgroups demonstrated longer operative times for the PGY 6-9 subgroup performing PVP when compared with other subgroups (P<0.003).
Within ACS NSQIP hospitals, TURP and PVP demonstrated similar risk-adjusted overall morbidity. Despite longer operative times for TURP and PVP with trainee involvement, there were no significant differences in outcomes.
比较经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)和前列腺光选择性汽化术(PVP)疗效的大型多中心研究较少,且尚无研究比较学员参与对这些疗效的影响。我们的目标是利用一个独立的全国性手术数据库,评估学员参与情况下TURP和PVP术后30天的疗效。
利用美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS NSQIP)的数据(2005 - 2011年),确定了7893例接受TURP或PVP的男性患者。构建回归模型以评估手术方式、风险调整后的发病率和个体并发症之间的关联。还检查了手术方式、手术时间和住院时间之间的关系,并根据学员水平进行细分。
7893例患者中,4950例(62.7%)接受了TURP,2943例(37.3%)接受了PVP。与PVP患者相比,TURP患者年龄更大,更有可能患有糖尿病、癌症、有使用类固醇的病史和术前输血,而PVP患者更有可能患有冠状动脉疾病或出血性疾病。风险调整后的总体发病率相似;然而,PVP与较少的肺炎(0.2%对0.5%,P<0.015)、需要输血的出血(0.5%对1.8%,P<0.001)以及返回手术室(1.5%对2.2%,P<0.022)相关。PVP患者的住院时间也更短(0.8天对2.1天,P<0.001)。学员参与时疗效无显著差异。由主治医生单独进行手术时,TURP和PVP的手术时间相似(52分钟对52分钟,P<0.001),但无论研究生年级(PGY)水平如何,学员参与时手术时间更长(P<0.001)。学员亚组之间手术时间的比较表明,与其他亚组相比,PGY 6 - 9亚组进行PVP时手术时间更长(P<0.003)。
在ACS NSQIP医院中,TURP和PVP显示出相似的风险调整后的总体发病率。尽管学员参与时TURP和PVP的手术时间更长,但疗效无显著差异。