Hibon G, Léonard G, Franceschi A, Misrai V, Bruyère F
Department of urology, CHRU de Tours, Loire Valley, 2, boulevard Tonnelle, 37000 Tours, France.
Department of public health university of Tours, hospital of Tours, 37000 Tours, France.
Prog Urol. 2017 Jun-Jul;27(8-9):482-488. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2017.04.006. Epub 2017 May 31.
Long-term outcome after prostate photovaporization (PVP) remains largely unknown, especially when performed on enlarged prostates. However, new vaporisation techniques (e.g., laser enucleation) are increasingly used. Our aim was to compare postoperative results after standard PVP to those of an anatomical technique.
This bicentric prospective study included males treated for enlarged prostate caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia using a GreenLight laser. Patients were preoperatively assessed according to prostate volume, post-void residual volume (PVR), maximum urinary-flow rate (Qmax), prostatic specific antigens, and International prostate symptom score (IPSS). Peroperative data included vaporization time, energy delivered, and operative length. Postoperative data at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months were compared with initial data; all complications were recorded. Comparisons were made between the conventional vaporization technique versus anatomical vaporization, which initially differentiated the peripheral zone of the prostate using an enucleation technique but no morcellation.
Records from 106 surgical patients between December 2012 and December 2013 were analyzed. Operative length, vaporisation time, and energy used were greater in the anatomical PVP group. The average length of hospital stay (2.0 vs. 2.5 days), time with a catheter (1.3 vs. 1.9 days), IPSS (5.0 vs. 6.4), PVR (15.5 vs. 11.7mL), and Qmax (19.9 vs. 19.7mL/s) were comparable between the two groups. However, more complications occurred (27% vs. 37%), including stress urinary incontinence (0% vs. 8%) when using anatomic vaporization.
Despite comparable groups and similar functional results, anatomical PVP caused more stress incontinence. However, the learning curve between the two techniques may explain this difference.
前列腺光汽化术(PVP)的长期疗效在很大程度上仍不明确,尤其是在对增生前列腺进行该手术时。然而,新的汽化技术(如激光剜除术)正越来越多地被使用。我们的目的是比较标准PVP术后结果与解剖技术的术后结果。
这项双中心前瞻性研究纳入了因良性前列腺增生使用绿激光治疗增生前列腺的男性患者。术前根据前列腺体积、残余尿量(PVR)、最大尿流率(Qmax)、前列腺特异性抗原和国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)对患者进行评估。术中数据包括汽化时间、能量传递和手术时长。将1、3、6和12个月时的术后数据与初始数据进行比较;记录所有并发症。对传统汽化技术与解剖汽化技术进行比较,解剖汽化技术最初使用剜除技术区分前列腺外周带,但不进行粉碎。
分析了2012年12月至2013年12月期间106例手术患者的记录。解剖PVP组的手术时长、汽化时间和能量使用更高。两组之间的平均住院时间(2.0天对2.5天)、留置导尿管时间(1.3天对1.9天)、IPSS(5.0对6.4)、PVR(15.5毫升对11.7毫升)和Qmax(19.9毫升/秒对19.7毫升/秒)相当。然而,使用解剖汽化时出现了更多并发症(27%对37%),包括压力性尿失禁(0%对8%)。
尽管两组情况相当且功能结果相似,但解剖PVP导致了更多压力性尿失禁。然而,两种技术之间的学习曲线可能解释了这种差异。
4级。