Elshal Ahmed M, El-Nahas Ahmed R, Ghazy Mostafa, Nabeeh Hossam, Laymon Mahmoud, Soltan Mohamed, Ghobrial Fady K, El-Kappany Hamdy A
Urology Department, Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, 35516 Elgomhoria Street, Mansoura, DK, Egypt.
Urology Department, Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, 35516 Elgomhoria Street, Mansoura, DK, Egypt.
Urology. 2018 Nov;121:58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.07.010. Epub 2018 Jul 19.
To assess the non-inferiority of Low-power Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (LP-HoLEP) to high-power (HP-HoLEP) for enucleation efficiency pertaining to the advantages of lower cost and minimal postoperative dysuria, storage symptoms, and negative sexual impact.
HoLEP was performed using 100W Versapulse, Luminis Inc., with 2J/25Hz for LP-HoLEP (61 patients) and 2J/50Hz for HP-HoLEP (60 patients). Two surgeons with different experience performed equal number of both procedures. Non-inferiority of enucleation efficiency (enucleated weight/min) was evaluated. All perioperative parameters were recorded and compared. Dysuria was assessed at 2 weeks by dysuria visual analog scale, urinary (Q.max and IPSS) and sexual (sexual health inventory for men score) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, and 12 months.
Baseline and perioperative parameters were comparable between the two groups. Mean enucleation efficiency was 1.42±0.6 vs 1.47±0.6 gm/min, P = .6 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively. Patients reported postoperative dysuria similarly in both groups as per dysuria visual analog scale. There was significant comparable improvement in IPSS (international prostate symptom score) and Q.max in both groups at different follow-up points. At one year, median IPSS and Q.max were comparable in both groups (P = .4 and .7 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively). Median postoperative reduction in prostate specific antigen was 89% (42:99) following LP-HoLEP vs 81% (62:94) after HP-HoLEP, P = .92. Both groups showed comparable perioperative and late postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant changes in the last follow-up sexual health inventory for men score in comparison to baseline score.
LP-HoLEP is non-inferior to HP-HoLEP in terms of all efficiency parameters regardless level of surgeon experience.
评估低功率钬激光前列腺剜除术(LP-HoLEP)与高功率钬激光前列腺剜除术(HP-HoLEP)在剜除效率方面的非劣效性,LP-HoLEP具有成本较低、术后排尿困难、储尿症状及负面性影响最小等优势。
使用Luminis公司的100W Versapulse进行HoLEP手术,LP-HoLEP组(61例患者)采用2J/25Hz,HP-HoLEP组(60例患者)采用2J/50Hz。两名经验不同的外科医生进行的两种手术数量相同。评估剜除效率(剜除重量/分钟)的非劣效性。记录并比较所有围手术期参数。术后2周通过排尿困难视觉模拟量表评估排尿困难情况,在术后1、4和12个月评估泌尿(最大尿流率和国际前列腺症状评分)及性功能(男性性健康量表评分)指标。
两组患者的基线和围手术期参数具有可比性。LP-HoLEP组和HP-HoLEP组的平均剜除效率分别为1.42±0.6 vs 1.47±0.6克/分钟,P = 0.6。根据排尿困难视觉模拟量表,两组患者术后排尿困难情况相似。在不同随访时间点,两组患者的国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)和最大尿流率均有显著且相当的改善。术后1年,两组患者的IPSS中位数和最大尿流率具有可比性(LP-HoLEP组和HP-HoLEP组的P分别为0.4和0.7)。LP-HoLEP组术后前列腺特异性抗原中位数下降89%(42:99),HP-HoLEP组为81%(62:94),P = 0.92。两组患者围手术期和术后晚期并发症相当。与基线评分相比,末次随访时男性性健康量表评分无统计学显著变化。
无论外科医生经验水平如何,LP-HoLEP在所有效率参数方面均不劣于HP-HoLEP。