Pyrgidis Nikolaos, Puhr-Westerheide Daniel, Schulz Gerald Bastian, Fabritius Matthias Philipp, Kazmierczak Philipp M, Seidensticker Max, Ricke Jens, Stief Christian, Weinhold Philipp, Marcon Julian, Keller Patrick
Department of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 29;14(17):6135. doi: 10.3390/jcm14176135.
Prostate artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a relatively new, minimally invasive alternative for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. We aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and trends of PAE versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and laser enucleation. We used the GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data (GRAND), provided by the Research Data Center of the Federal Bureau of Statistics, and performed multiple patient-level analyses. Patients with prostate cancer, acute hematuria, and emergent referral to the hospital were excluded. Between 2017 and 2022, a total of 3665 PAEs were performed in Germany compared to 218,388 TURPs and 50,863 laser enucleations. Patients selected for PAE were slightly younger and presented with fewer comorbidities at baseline. The number of laser enucleations increased exponentially in these years, PAEs remained stable, whereas TURPs slightly decreased. Compared to PAE, laser enucleation was associated with higher odds of in-hospital incontinence (4.2% versus 2.7%, OR: 1.6, 95%CI: 1.3-1.9, < 0.001). On the contrary, PAE was associated with lower odds of in-hospital urinary retention and shorter length of hospital stay compared to TURP (3.2% versus 7.1%, OR: 2.2, 95%CI: 1.8-2.6, < 0.001, and a 2.6-day difference, 95%CI: 2.5-2.7, < 0.001, respectively) and laser enucleation (3.2% versus 5%, OR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.3-1.8, < 0.001, and a 1.5-day difference, 95%CI: 1.4-1.6, < 0.001, respectively). PAE offers more favorable perioperative outcomes compared to TURP and laser enucleation, but the use of this relatively new procedure has remained nearly stable in recent years.
前列腺动脉栓塞术(PAE)已成为一种相对较新的、微创的治疗良性前列腺增生的替代方法。我们旨在比较PAE与经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)及激光剜除术的围手术期结果和趋势。我们使用了由联邦统计局研究数据中心提供的德国全国住院患者数据(GRAND),并进行了多项患者层面的分析。排除患有前列腺癌、急性血尿以及紧急转诊至医院的患者。2017年至2022年期间,德国共进行了3665例PAE手术,相比之下,TURP手术有218,388例,激光剜除术有50,863例。选择接受PAE的患者年龄稍小,且基线时合并症较少。这些年激光剜除术的数量呈指数增长,PAE手术数量保持稳定,而TURP手术数量略有下降。与PAE相比,激光剜除术与院内尿失禁几率较高相关(4.2%对2.7%,比值比:1.6,95%置信区间:1.3 - 1.9,<0.001)。相反,与TURP相比,PAE与院内尿潴留几率较低以及住院时间较短相关(3.2%对7.1%,比值比:2.2,95%置信区间:1.8 - 2.6,<0.001,以及相差2.6天,95%置信区间:2.5 - 2.7,<0.001),与激光剜除术相比也是如此(3.2%对5%,比值比:1.5,95%置信区间:1.3 - 1.8,<0.001,以及相差1.5天,95%置信区间:1.4 - 1.6,<0.001)。与TURP和激光剜除术相比,PAE提供了更有利的围手术期结果,但近年来这种相对较新的手术方法的使用情况几乎保持稳定。