Miller J, Ludwig M, Schroeder-Printzen I, Schiefer H G, Weidner W
Department of Urology, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Ann Urol (Paris). 1996;30(3):131-8.
To date transurethral laser ablation of the prostate (TULAP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the commonest form of transurethral laser surgery. The invention of the so-called "sidefire" laser fibre was the prerequisite condition for effective transurethral laser ablation of the prostate. Since the first transurethral laser ablation in human BPH was performed by Costello in September 1990, a multitude of urologists have adopted this technique. In the meantime, a great many studies have been carried out and a lot of data have been published. The initial, to some extent euphoric, enthusiasm of some urologists as well as some patients, especially in the USA and Europe, has turned into a more critical reflection. There is no doubt at all that TULAP is a feasible alternative treatment method with reasonable results. Especially in the high-risk patient, there is neither severe blood loss nor an uptake of irrigation fluid. It is also beneficial to allow unlimited treatment in patients on anticoagulant medication. Nevertheless, the value of TULAP in comparison to transurethral electroresection of the prostate (TURP), generally accepted as the "gold-standard" in the surgical therapy of BPH, remains unclear. A final assessment will only be possible when further data on mortality, short and long term morbidity and outcome with this method have been presented. Strong evidence exists that the operation can be performed without blood loss and uptake of irrigation fluid. A further advantage seems to be preservation of sexual function, especially anterograde ejaculation in the majority of patients, in comparison to the "gold-standard" TURP. In most studies, the value of TULAP is further compared with regard to the elimination of obstruction by means of pressure-flow-studies. The aspect most frequently neglected by all investigators to date is the frequency and severity of urinary tract infections (UTI) in patients in whom TULAP is performed. Basically, UTI in the form of cystitis, ascending infections such as male adnexitis or pyelonephritis, prostatitis of the remaining parts of the prostate and catheter-induced urethritis are associated with transurethral surgery in general. Certain data indicate an age-related frequency of UTI. From a rate of approximately 1% of UTI in infants, the frequency rises to 30% in the 8th decade of life. According to these data, one can expect that in a study of TULAP in high risk patients, most of whom are elderly, a large number present for surgery with a preexisting UTI. Other data demonstrate that after 4.5 days 50% and more of patients with an indwelling catheter develop an ascending UTI, although a closed urinary drainage system has been used. In most cases enterobacteriaceae, in 80% Escherichia coli, are detected. Especially in TULAP, a period of prolonged catheterisation has to be expected in the majority of patients. The risk of UTI in the perioperative phase is therefore expected to be higher. There are several higher risks and possibilities of complications in transurethral surgery in patients with UTI. Taking this into account, all our patients routinely undergo low dose antibiotic prophylactic treatment. The frequency of infections of the remaining parts of the prostate after prostatic surgery is strongly correlated to the flow characteristics in the prostatic urethra and to the amount of destruction of the prostatic tissue. Here are further reasons for a higher risk of infection after TULAP. Due to the fact that the prostatic tissue is not removed by a clear cut, but coagulated by laser beam, a rough surface due to tissue necrosis results. This is an ideal culture medium for bacteria aggravated by the disturbed laminar flow in the prostatic urethra, which favours an intraprostatic reflux of infected urine. There is evidence that UTI are the most important factor of morbidity during the first weeks after TULAP because of their bothersome symptoms.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
迄今为止,经尿道前列腺激光汽化术(TULAP)是良性前列腺增生(BPH)最常见的经尿道激光手术方式。所谓“侧射”激光光纤的发明是有效经尿道前列腺激光汽化术的前提条件。自1990年9月科斯特洛首次对人类BPH进行经尿道激光汽化术以来,众多泌尿外科医生采用了这项技术。与此同时,开展了大量研究并发表了许多数据。一些泌尿外科医生以及部分患者最初(在某种程度上是欣喜若狂地)的热情,尤其是在美国和欧洲,已转变为更为批判性的思考。毫无疑问,TULAP是一种可行的替代治疗方法,效果合理。特别是对于高危患者,既不会出现严重失血,也不会吸收冲洗液。对于正在接受抗凝药物治疗的患者,允许进行无限制治疗也是有益的。然而,与被普遍视为BPH手术治疗“金标准”的经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)相比,TULAP的价值仍不明确。只有在提供关于该方法的死亡率、短期和长期发病率及结果的更多数据后,才能进行最终评估。有力证据表明,该手术可以在不出血和不吸收冲洗液的情况下进行。与“金标准”TURP相比,另一个优势似乎是保留性功能,尤其是大多数患者的顺行射精功能。在大多数研究中,还通过压力 - 流量研究进一步比较了TULAP在解除梗阻方面的价值。迄今为止,所有研究者最常忽略的方面是接受TULAP治疗患者的尿路感染(UTI)频率和严重程度。基本上,膀胱炎形式的UTI、上行性感染如男性附睾炎或肾盂肾炎、前列腺其余部分的前列腺炎以及导管性尿道炎,一般都与经尿道手术有关。某些数据表明UTI的发生频率与年龄相关。从婴儿中约1%的UTI发生率,到80岁时升至30%。根据这些数据,可以预期在一项针对高危患者(其中大多数为老年人)的TULAP研究中,大多数患者在手术时已有UTI。其他数据表明,尽管使用了封闭式尿液引流系统,但留置导管4.5天后,50%及以上的患者会发生上行性UTI。在大多数情况下,检测到肠杆菌科细菌,80%为大肠杆菌。特别是在TULAP中,大多数患者预计需要长时间留置导管。因此,围手术期UTI的风险预计会更高。UTI患者经尿道手术存在多种更高的风险和并发症可能性。考虑到这一点,我们所有的患者都常规接受低剂量抗生素预防性治疗。前列腺手术后前列腺其余部分的感染频率与前列腺尿道的血流特性以及前列腺组织的破坏程度密切相关。这是TULAP后感染风险更高的进一步原因。由于前列腺组织不是通过清晰切割去除,而是由激光束凝固,组织坏死导致表面粗糙。这是细菌的理想培养基,前列腺尿道中紊乱的层流会加剧这种情况,有利于感染尿液的前列腺内反流。有证据表明,UTI因其令人烦恼的症状,是TULAP后最初几周发病的最重要因素。(摘要截选)