Rosenbaum Clemens M, Vetterlein Malte W, Fisch Margit, Reiss Philipp, Worst Thomas Stefan, Kranz Jennifer, Steffens Joachim, Kluth Luis A, Pfalzgraf Daniel
Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Hamburg Barmbek, 22307 Hamburg, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2021 Jun 29;10(13):2884. doi: 10.3390/jcm10132884.
Bladder neck contracture (BNC) is a bothersome complication following endoscopic treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The objective of our study was to give a more realistic insight into contemporary endoscopic BNC treatment and to evaluate and identify risk factors associated with inferior outcome.
We identified patients who underwent transurethral treatment for BNC secondary to previous endoscopic therapy for BPH between March 2009 and October 2016. Patients with vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis after radical prostatectomy were excluded. Digital charts were reviewed for re-admissions and re-visits at our institutions and patients were contacted personally for follow-up. Our non-validated questionnaire assessed previous urologic therapies (including radiotherapy, endoscopic, and open surgery), time to eventual further therapy in case of BNC recurrence, and the modality of recurrence management.
Of 60 patients, 49 (82%) and 11 (18%) underwent transurethral bladder neck resection and incision, respectively. Initial BPH therapy was transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in 54 (90%) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in six (10%) patients. Median time from prior therapy was 8.5 (IQR 5.3-14) months and differed significantly in those with (6.5 months; IQR 4-10) and those without BNC recurrence (10 months; IQR 6-20; = 0.046). Thirty-three patients (55%) underwent initial endoscopic treatment, and 27 (45%) repeated endoscopic treatment for BNC. In initially-treated patients, time since BPH surgery differed significantly between those with a recurrence (median 7.5 months; IQR 6-9) compared to those treated successfully (median 12 months; IQR 9-25; = 0.01). In patients with repeated treatment, median time from prior BNC therapy did not differ between those with (4.5 months; IQR 2-12) and those without a recurrence (6 months; IQR 6-10; = 0.6). Overall, BNC treatment was successful in 32 patients (53%). The observed success rate of BNC treatment was significantly higher after HoLEP compared to TURP (100% vs. 48%; = 0.026). Type of BNC treatment, number of BNC treatment, and age at surgery did not influence the outcome.
A longer time interval between previous BPH therapy and subsequent BNC incidence seems to favorably affect treatment success of endoscopic BNC treatment, and transurethral resection and incision appear equally effective. Granted the relatively small sample size, BNC treatment success seems to be higher after HoLEP compared to TURP, which warrants validation in larger cohorts.
膀胱颈挛缩(BNC)是良性前列腺增生(BPH)内镜治疗后令人困扰的并发症。我们研究的目的是更实际地洞察当代内镜下BNC治疗情况,并评估和识别与不良预后相关的危险因素。
我们纳入了2009年3月至2016年10月期间因既往BPH内镜治疗继发BNC而接受经尿道治疗的患者。排除根治性前列腺切除术后膀胱尿道吻合口狭窄的患者。查阅了我们机构的电子病历以了解再次入院和复诊情况,并亲自联系患者进行随访。我们未经验证的问卷评估了既往的泌尿外科治疗(包括放疗、内镜手术和开放手术)、BNC复发时最终进一步治疗的时间以及复发管理方式。
60例患者中,分别有49例(82%)和11例(18%)接受了经尿道膀胱颈切除术和切开术。初始BPH治疗为经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)的有54例(90%),钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)的有6例(10%)。距先前治疗的中位时间为8.5(四分位间距5.3 - 14)个月,有BNC复发的患者(6.5个月;四分位间距4 - 10)与无BNC复发的患者(10个月;四分位间距6 - 20;P = 0.046)之间差异显著。33例患者(55%)接受了初始内镜治疗,27例(45%)因BNC重复进行了内镜治疗。在初始治疗的患者中,BPH手术后至复发的时间在复发患者(中位7.5个月;四分位间距6 - 9)与成功治疗患者(中位12个月;四分位间距9 - 25;P = 0.01)之间差异显著。在重复治疗的患者中,距先前BNC治疗的中位时间在复发患者(4.5个月;四分位间距2 - 12)与无复发患者(6个月;四分位间距6 - 10;P = 0.6)之间无差异。总体而言,32例患者(53%)的BNC治疗成功。与TURP相比,HoLEP后观察到的BNC治疗成功率显著更高(100%对48%;P = 0.026)。BNC治疗类型、BNC治疗次数和手术年龄不影响治疗结果。
先前BPH治疗与随后BNC发生之间较长的时间间隔似乎有利于内镜下BNC治疗的成功,经尿道切除和切开似乎同样有效。鉴于样本量相对较小,与TURP相比,HoLEP后BNC治疗成功率似乎更高,这需要在更大队列中进行验证。