Anson K, Nawrocki J, Buckley J, Fowler C, Kirby R, Lawrence W, Paterson P, Watson G
Institute of Urology, Middlesex Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Urology. 1995 Sep;46(3):305-10. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80211-8.
To assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic laser ablation of the prostate (ELAP), performed with the Urolase fiber and the neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser, compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with bladder outflow obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
In this multicenter, prospective, randomized study, a total of 151 patients were treated (ELAP, 76; TURP, 75) of whom 137 completed 1 year follow-up (ELAP, 67; TURP, 70). Safety parameters included measurement of preoperative and 24-hour postoperative sodium, hematocrit, and hemoglobin values and careful monitoring of adverse events. Efficacy was assessed with the American Urological Association symptom score (6), urinary flow rates, and residual urinary volume measurements.
There was 1 death in each group during the study period unrelated to the treatment procedure. There was a clinically significant improvement in all efficacy parameters in both groups. Between group comparisons favored TURP in maximum flow rate, residual urinary volume, and symptom score. ELAP had a better safety profile than TURP in the defined safety parameters of drop in hemoglobin and hematocrit values. In 16% of patients, a blood transfusion was required after TURP compared with no transfusions in the ELAP group. Urinary tract infections and dysuria were more frequent in the ELAP group.
ELAP performed with the Urolase fiber is a useful alternative therapy to TURP in patients presenting with bladder outflow obstruction secondary to BPH.
评估使用尿道激光光纤和钕:钇铝石榴石激光进行前列腺内镜激光消融术(ELAP)与经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)相比,在良性前列腺增生(BPH)继发膀胱流出道梗阻患者中的安全性和有效性。
在这项多中心、前瞻性、随机研究中,共治疗了151例患者(ELAP组76例;TURP组75例),其中137例完成了1年随访(ELAP组67例;TURP组70例)。安全参数包括术前和术后24小时钠、血细胞比容和血红蛋白值的测量以及对不良事件的仔细监测。疗效通过美国泌尿外科学会症状评分(6分制)、尿流率和残余尿量测量进行评估。
研究期间每组各有1例死亡,与治疗过程无关。两组的所有疗效参数均有临床显著改善。组间比较显示,TURP在最大尿流率、残余尿量和症状评分方面更具优势。在血红蛋白和血细胞比容值下降这一确定的安全参数方面,ELAP的安全性优于TURP。TURP术后16%的患者需要输血,而ELAP组无输血情况。ELAP组尿路感染和排尿困难更为常见。
对于BPH继发膀胱流出道梗阻的患者,使用尿道激光光纤进行的ELAP是TURP的一种有用替代疗法。