Zakaria Ahmed S, Hodhod Amr, Abbas Loay, Fathy Moustafa, Abdul Hadi Ruba, Shabana Waleed, MacDonald Anastasia Alexandra, Gamaleldin Ahmed, Abdallah Mohamed, Elgharbawy Mohamed, Ahmad Abdulrahman, Roos Adam, Kotb Ahmed, Shahrour Walid, Elmansy Hazem
Urology Department, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
Urology Department, Menoufia University, Shebin Elkom, Egypt.
Adv Urol. 2022 Sep 20;2022:5185114. doi: 10.1155/2022/5185114. eCollection 2022.
We carried out a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent top-down HoLEP for the management of recurrent BPH at our institution. Patients who had previously undergone TURP were assigned to group I, while those with no history of prostate surgery were allocated to group II. Preoperative clinical characteristics, enucleation time, resected tissue weight, morcellation time, energy used, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded and statistically analyzed. Patients were followed up postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life assessment (QoL), maximum urinary flow rate ( ), postvoid residual urine test (PVR), and continence status.
Two hundred and sixty-nine patients were included in this study. Group I consisted of 68 patients with recurrent BPH, while group II included 201 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between both groups. The median enucleation time for group I (67.5 min (25-200)) was not significantly longer than that for group II (60 min (19-165) (=0.25)). Operative outcomes, including morcellation time, resected weight, catheter duration, and hospital stay, were comparable between both groups. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, all urinary functional outcomes showed significant improvement, and there were no significant differences between the two groups. At 3 months' follow-up, two patients in group I and three patients in group II experienced stress urinary incontinence (SUI). At the last follow-up visit, one patient from group I presented with persistent SUI.
For managing recurrent and nonrecurrent cases of BPH, top-down HoLEP is safe with comparable urinary functional outcomes. Patients with a history of previous prostate surgery can be counselled that their prior transurethral procedure does not reduce the benefits of HoLEP.
我们对在我院接受经尿道前列腺剜除术(top-down HoLEP)治疗复发性良性前列腺增生(BPH)的患者进行了回顾性分析。曾接受经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)的患者被分配到第一组,而无前列腺手术史的患者被分配到第二组。记录术前临床特征、剜除时间、切除组织重量、粉碎时间、能量使用情况以及术中及术后并发症,并进行统计学分析 。患者在术后1个月、3个月、6个月和12个月进行随访。评估内容包括国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评估(QoL)、最大尿流率( )、排尿后残余尿量检测(PVR)和控尿状态 。
本研究共纳入269例患者。第一组包括68例复发性BPH患者,第二组包括201例患者。两组术前特征无统计学显著差异。第一组的中位剜除时间为67.5分钟(25 - 200),并不显著长于第二组的60分钟(19 - 165)( = 0.25)。包括粉碎时间、切除重量、导尿管留置时间和住院时间在内的手术结果在两组之间具有可比性。在1个月、3个月、6个月和12个月时,所有尿功能指标均显示出显著改善,两组之间无显著差异。在3个月的随访中,第一组有2例患者和第二组有3例患者出现压力性尿失禁(SUI)。在最后一次随访时,第一组有1例患者持续性SUI。
对于复发性和非复发性BPH病例,经尿道前列腺剜除术(top-down HoLEP)是安全的,尿功能结果相当。对于有前列腺手术史的患者,可以告知他们先前的经尿道手术不会降低经尿道前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)的益处。