Suppr超能文献

经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)、钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)和双极经尿道前列腺电切术(TUEP)治疗中等大小前列腺的经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)、经尿道前列腺切除术(HoLEP)和经尿道前列腺切除术(TUEP)的配对分析

Enucleation vs. Resection: A Matched-pair Analysis of TURP, HoLEP and Bipolar TUEP in Medium-sized Prostates.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

Urology. 2021 Aug;154:221-226. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.004. Epub 2021 Apr 21.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), bipolar enucleation of the prostate (bTUEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in medium-sized prostates (50cc).

METHODS

We present a retrospective analysis of 2230 patients treated for lower urinary tract symptoms. We analysed perioperative parameters, short-term clinical outcomes and adverse events in matched-pair cohorts.

RESULTS

Both HoLEP and bTUEP were superior in terms of efficacy compared to TURP (surgery time: 51min and 50min vs. 60min; P < 0.001; tissue retrieval percentage: 71.4% and 70% vs. 50%; P < 0.001) and showed stronger improvement of LUTS (change IPSS: -15 and -14 vs. -10; P = 0.008). Furthermore, urodynamic parameters (Qmax: +15 ml/s and +19 ml/s vs. +12 ml/s; P < 0.001; PVR: -100 ml and -95 ml vs. - 80ml; P < 0.008) were significantly more improved after enucleation than after TURP. All techniques showed an equally low complication rate (6.9% and 6.9% vs. 10.3%; P = 0.743). No relevant difference of clinical outcomes was identified between HoLEP and bTUEP.

CONCLUSION

Both resection and enucleation are efficient and safe procedures in patients with medium-sized prostates (50cc), but irrespective of the technical approach, transurethral enucleation is superior to TURP in terms of perioperative and functional outcomes.

摘要

目的

评估钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)、双极前列腺剜除术(bTUEP)和经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)治疗中等大小前列腺(50cc)的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们对 2230 例接受下尿路症状治疗的患者进行了回顾性分析。我们分析了配对队列的围手术期参数、短期临床结果和不良事件。

结果

与 TURP 相比,HoLEP 和 bTUEP 在疗效方面均具有优势(手术时间:51 分钟和 50 分钟 vs. 60 分钟;P < 0.001;组织回收百分比:71.4%和 70% vs. 50%;P < 0.001),并且对 LUTS 的改善更为明显(IPSS 变化:-15 和-14 与-10;P = 0.008)。此外,与 TURP 相比,尿动力学参数(Qmax:+15 ml/s 和+19 ml/s 与+12 ml/s;P < 0.001;PVR:-100 ml 和-95 ml 与-80ml;P < 0.008)在剜除术后改善更为显著。所有技术的并发症发生率均相同(6.9%和 6.9%与 10.3%;P = 0.743)。HoLEP 和 bTUEP 之间的临床结果无显著差异。

结论

在中等大小前列腺(50cc)患者中,切除和剜除都是有效且安全的手术方法,但无论采用何种技术方法,在围手术期和功能结果方面,经尿道剜除均优于 TURP。

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