钬激光前列腺剜除术与铥激光前列腺剜除术治疗体积较大前列腺(>80ml):18 个月随访结果。
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus thulium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of large-volume prostates > 80 ml: 18-month follow-up results.
机构信息
Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.
出版信息
World J Urol. 2020 Jun;38(6):1555-1562. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02945-x. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
PURPOSE
To compare the perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) for the treatment of large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (> 80 ml).
METHODS
A total of 116 consecutive patients with BPH were randomized to be treated surgically with either HoLEP (n = 58) or ThuLEP (n = 58), following the classical three-lobe enucleation technique. Follow-up was assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after surgery.
RESULTS
At 18 months, the lower urinary tract symptom index was improved significantly in both groups compared with the baseline values. The operative time (78.4 ± 8.0 vs. 71.4 ± 6.4 min) and enucleation time (61.2 ± 5.4 vs. 56.4 ± 8.4 min) were significantly shorter for ThuLEP compared to HoLEP (both p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding morcellation time, resected weight, hemoglobin decrease, catheter time and hospital stay (p > 0.05). The HoLEP and ThuLEP groups had equivalent International Prostate Symptom Scores (3 [3-3] vs. 3 [3-3], p = 0.776), quality of life (1 [1-2] vs. 2 [1-2], p = 0.809), Qmax (25.3 ± 4.8 ml/s vs. 24.7 ± 4.4 ml/s, p = 0.470), postvoid residual urine (PVR) (6.1 [2.6-20.8] vs. 7.7 [3.1-22.8] ml, p = 0.449) and PSA (0.84 ± 0.32 vs. 0.90 ± 0.34 ml, p = 0.309) at 18 months postoperatively.
CONCLUSION
Both HoLEP and ThuLEP relieve lower urinary tract symptoms in a comparable way with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in operation time and enucleation time, although the differences were clinically negligible.
目的
比较钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)和铥激光前列腺剜除术(ThuLEP)治疗大体积良性前列腺增生(BPH)(>80ml)的围手术期和功能结局。
方法
共 116 例 BPH 患者连续随机分为 HoLEP 组(n=58)和 ThuLEP 组(n=58),采用经典的三叶剜除术进行手术治疗。术后 1、3、6、12 和 18 个月进行随访评估。
结果
与基线相比,两组在术后 18 个月时下尿路症状指数均显著改善。与 HoLEP 相比,ThuLEP 的手术时间(78.4±8.0 分钟比 71.4±6.4 分钟)和剜除时间(61.2±5.4 分钟比 56.4±8.4 分钟)明显缩短(均 p<0.001)。两组在粉碎时间、切除重量、血红蛋白减少、导尿管时间和住院时间方面无显著差异(p>0.05)。HoLEP 组和 ThuLEP 组的国际前列腺症状评分(3[3-3]分比 3[3-3]分,p=0.776)、生活质量评分(1[1-2]分比 2[1-2]分,p=0.809)、最大尿流率(25.3±4.8ml/s 比 24.7±4.4ml/s,p=0.470)、术后残余尿量(6.1[2.6-20.8]ml 比 7.7[3.1-22.8]ml,p=0.449)和 PSA(0.84±0.32ml 比 0.90±0.34ml,p=0.309)在术后 18 个月时无显著差异。
结论
HoLEP 和 ThuLEP 均可缓解下尿路症状,疗效和安全性相当。尽管在统计学上 ThuLEP 在手术时间和剜除时间方面优于 HoLEP,但差异在临床上可以忽略不计。