Suppr超能文献

经尿道前列腺切除术与可视化激光前列腺消融术治疗良性前列腺增生的前瞻性随机对照研究。

A prospective randomized comparison of transurethral resection to visual laser ablation of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

作者信息

Cowles R S, Kabalin J N, Childs S, Lepor H, Dixon C, Stein B, Zabbo A

机构信息

Atlanta Center for Urology, Georgia; USA

出版信息

Urology. 1995 Aug;46(2):155-60. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80185-x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) represents the accepted standard of surgical therapy for the management of symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, this is a major operative procedure associated with significant perioperative morbidity. Visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) utilizing a neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser represents a new technologic approach to the surgical management of BPH. We compared the relative safety and efficacy of these two surgical approaches in a prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS

At 6 investigational sites in the United States, 115 men with symptomatic BPH more than 50 years of age and not in retention, were randomly assigned to undergo either TURP (59 patients) of VLAP (56 patients). VLAP patients received a mean of 10,200 J of energy delivered in a mean of 5.5 intraprostate laser applications. At preoperative baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively, all patients underwent clinical evaluations, including ultrasonic prostatic volume determination, standardized American Urological Association (AUA)-6 symptom score, peak urine flow, postvoid residual urine volume, and quality-of-life assessment.

RESULTS

Compared to TURP, the VLAP procedure required less time (23.4 versus 45.2 minutes; P < 0.01) and shorter hospitalization (1.8 versus 3.1 days, P < 0.01). VLAP was associated with a significantly lower rate of serious treatment-related complications compared to TURP (10.7% versus 35.6%; P < 0.01). Only One (2.2%) patient undergoing VLAP experienced a greater than 2.2 g/dL decrease in hemoglobin compared to 40% of TURP patients (P = 0.01). No patient in the VLAP group required blood transfusion compared with 3.4% of those undergoing TURP. Of the 115 patients, clinical outcomes measured at 1 year showed a mean improvement in AUA-6 symptom scores of -9.0 for VLAP compared with -13.3 for TURP (P < 0.04), mean increase in peak urinary flow rate of 5.3 cc/s for VLAP compared with 7.0 cc/s for TURP (P = 0.27), and mean decrease in postvoid residual urine volume of -55.4 cc for VLAP compared with -138.8 cc for TURP (P < 0.01). At 1 year, 78.2% of patients undergoing VLAP indicated that their quality of life was improved compared with 93.0% of patients undergoing TURP (P = 0.03). When compared with TURP, treatment of BPH with VLAP is associated with less hemoglobin decrease, a lower likelihood of serious complication, and requires less procedure time and a shorter hospital stay. Through a 1-year follow-up, VLAP produced significant improvement over baseline in objective and subjective outcome measures. However, for 1-year improvement in AUA-6 symptom score, postvoid residual urine volume, and quality of life, VLAP was less effective than TURP.

CONCLUSIONS

In this initial study in the United States, with relatively low-energy laser applications, VLAP did not result in as complete a removal of prostatic tissue as did TURP. Considering the lower morbidity, shorter procedure and hospitalization times, and the degree of effectiveness that was achieved even at the low-energy doses used in this study, VLAP appears to be a viable and safe alternative to standard TURP.

摘要

目的

经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)是治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)所致有症状膀胱出口梗阻的公认手术治疗标准。然而,这是一项 major 手术操作,伴有显著的围手术期发病率。利用钕:钇铝石榴石激光进行的前列腺可视激光消融术(VLAP)是一种治疗BPH的新技术方法。我们在一项前瞻性随机试验中比较了这两种手术方法的相对安全性和有效性。

方法

在美国的6个研究地点,115名年龄超过50岁且无尿潴留的有症状BPH男性被随机分配接受TURP(59例患者)或VLAP(56例患者)。VLAP患者平均接受10200焦耳能量,平均在前列腺内进行5.5次激光照射。在术前基线、术后3个月、6个月和1年,所有患者均接受临床评估,包括超声测定前列腺体积、标准化美国泌尿外科学会(AUA)-6症状评分、最大尿流率、排尿后残余尿量和生活质量评估。

结果

与TURP相比,VLAP手术所需时间更短(23.4分钟对45.2分钟;P<0.01),住院时间更短(1.8天对3.1天,P<0.01)。与TURP相比,VLAP严重治疗相关并发症发生率显著更低(10.7%对35.6%;P<0.01)。接受VLAP的患者中只有1例(2.2%)血红蛋白下降超过2.2g/dL,而接受TURP的患者中有40%出现这种情况(P=0.01)。VLAP组无患者需要输血,而接受TURP的患者中有3.4%需要输血。在115例患者中,1年时测量的临床结果显示,VLAP的AUA-6症状评分平均改善-9.0,而TURP为-13.3(P<0.04);VLAP的最大尿流率平均增加5.3cc/s,而TURP为7.0cc/s(P=0.27);VLAP的排尿后残余尿量平均减少-55.4cc,而TURP为-138.8cc(P<0.01)。1年时,接受VLAP的患者中有78.2%表示生活质量得到改善,而接受TURP的患者中有93.0%(P=0.03)。与TURP相比,VLAP治疗BPH导致血红蛋白下降更少,严重并发症可能性更低,所需手术时间更短,住院时间更短。通过1年随访,VLAP在客观和主观结局指标方面较基线有显著改善。然而,对于AUA-6症状评分、排尿后残余尿量和生活质量的1年改善情况,VLAP不如TURP有效。

结论

在美国的这项初步研究中,使用相对低能量激光照射,VLAP未能像TURP那样完全切除前列腺组织。考虑到发病率较低、手术和住院时间较短,以及即使在本研究中使用的低能量剂量下也能达到的有效性程度,VLAP似乎是标准TURP的一种可行且安全的替代方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验