Suppr超能文献

一项采用指导方法比较3种前列腺增生内镜剜除技术(HoLEP、ThuFLEP和MEP)学习曲线的随机试验——初步结果。

A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach-Initial Results.

作者信息

Enikeev Dmitry, Glybochko Petr, Rapoport Leonid, Gahan Jeffrey, Gazimiev Magomed, Spivak Leonid, Enikeev Mikhail, Taratkin Mark

机构信息

Sechenov University, Research Institute for Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Russian Federation.

Sechenov University, Research Institute for Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Russian Federation.

出版信息

Urology. 2018 Nov;121:51-57. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.045. Epub 2018 Jul 24.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP.

RESULTS

ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P > .05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate-1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P < .001) without significant difference between techniques of laser EEP (P = .07).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate can be adopted safely and effectively within 30 surgeries if the technique is learned with a mentoring approach. EEP is shown to be safe and effective even in the initial stages of learning. Laser EEP (HoLEP, ThuFLEP) appears to lend itself to quicker adaptation compared MEP.

摘要

目的

评估前列腺内镜剜除术不同技术相关的学习曲线差异。

材料与方法

90例患者被随机分为3组(每组30例):holmium激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)、thulium激光前列腺剜除术(ThuFLEP)或机械前列腺剜除术(MEP)。该研究的纳入标准包括前列腺体积<80立方厘米、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)>20或最大尿流率(Qmax)<10。前列腺内镜剜除术由3名有经尿道前列腺切除术经验的外科医生进行。外科医生对手术技术的分配也是随机的。所有外科医生此前均无前列腺内镜剜除术经验。

结果

就总体剜除率而言,ThuFLEP略优于HoLEP和MEP(无显著差异[P>.05]),分别为1.0克/分钟、0.8克/分钟和0.7克/分钟。在训练初期(前20例手术),我们观察到类似的剜除率,ThuFLEP效率无显著提高。在接下来的10例手术中,ThuFLEP和HoLEP的效率高于MEP(P<.001),激光前列腺内镜剜除术技术之间无显著差异(P=.07)。

结论

如果采用带教方法学习技术,前列腺内镜剜除术可在30例手术内安全有效地开展。即使在学习初期,前列腺内镜剜除术也被证明是安全有效的。与MEP相比,激光前列腺内镜剜除术(HoLEP、ThuFLEP)似乎更容易更快适应。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验