4.4 Article

Anteroposterior Dissection HoLEP: A Modification to Prevent Transient Stress Urinary Incontinence

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 76, 期 6, 页码 1451-1455

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.071

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The prevalence of transient stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after HoLEP has been reported to be as high as 44%. Anteroposterior dissection HoLEP was newly developed to protect the urethral sphincter and therefore lower the incidence rate of SUI. This study was conducted to determine the SUI incidence rate after anteroposterior dissection HoLEP. METHODS Sixty-eight consecutive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent HoLEP from January to December 2008. The first 31 cases (Surgery 1) underwent HoLEP according to Gilling's method. The next 37 cases (Surgery 2) underwent anteroposterior dissection HoLEP, where adenoma was dissected antegradely. This antegrade movement of the cystoscope allows the apical gland to be removed from the sphincter without causing damage. Surgical quality indexes (hemoglobin change, operating time, resected prostate volume) between the 2 groups were compared. All patients were assessed at 2 weeks postoperatively for clinical SUI, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), and peak flow rates (Q(max)). RESULTS Patient characteristics and surgical quality indexes did not differ between the 2 groups. Clinical SUI was found in 25.2% of cases in the Surgery 1 group, but only 2.7% in the Surgery 2 group. IPSS, QoL and Q(max). were significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. At 2 weeks, the QoL of the Surgery 2 group was significantly improved compared with that observed for Surgery 1 (1.5 +/- 1.1 vs 2.4 +/- 1.0, P = .02). The Q(max). of Surgery 2 was significantly higher compared with Surgery 1 (19.8 +/- 8.4 vs 13.0 +/- 4.7 ml/s, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that our anteroposterior dissection HoLEP is a promising procedure to avoid postoperative SUI and also to substantially improve QoL. UROLOGY 76: 1451-1456, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据