4.5 Article

Thulium:YAG laser enucleation (VapoEnucleation) of the prostate: safety and durability during intermediate-term follow-up

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 39-43

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-009-0461-6

关键词

Benign prostatic hyperplasia; BPO; Enucleation; Thulium:YAG; Revolix; HoLEP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) VapoEnucleation has been introduced and relief of obstruction was demonstrated. The aim of this study was to proof durability of the outcomes in patients with an postoperative follow-up > 12 month. VapoEnucleation was performed using a 70 Watt continuous-wave-laser. After enucleation tissue was morcellated within the bladder. Patients were followed in terms of improvement of uroflow, intra- and postoperative course and for occurring complications. 88 consecutive patients with prostatic enlargement underwent our initial series of VapoEnucleation. Prostatic volume was 61.3 +/- A 24.0 cc (30-160). OR-time was 72 min +/- 26.6 (35-144) and laser-time 32.4 +/- A 10.1 min (16.3-59.3). Applied laser energy was 123.7 +/- A 40.6 kJ (67.8-240.9). Foley catheter-time was 2.1 +/- A 1.06 days on average. In 79/88 patients the postoperative period extended 12 month (mean: 16.5 month). 2 patients deceased during the follow-up, 15 patients did not respond. Therefore, 62/77 patients were available for follow-up. Flow-rate and post-voiding residual urine improved significantly [3.5 vs. 23.3 ml/s (p < 0.001); 121.3 vs. 33.4 ml (p < 0.05)]. IPSS decreased from 18.4 to 6.8, QoL dropped from 4.6 to 1.4. Early complications were urinary tract infection (n: 6/6.8%), bleeding (n: 5/5.6%) and immediate re-treatment (n: 2/2.2%), as well as urethral stricture (n: 1/1.6%) during follow-up. Postoperative short-term dysuria was recorded in 27% of the patients. VapoEnucleation is a safe and effective minimal invasive treatment modality for BPO. The improvement in voiding and bother is durable in patients with a postoperative period extending 12 month.

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

4.5
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