4.5 Article

Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes of Prostatic Urethral Lift for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Asian Population Study

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF MENS HEALTH
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 338-344

出版社

PUSAN NATL UNIV MEDICAL SCH, DEPT UROLOGY
DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.190015

关键词

Benign prostatic hyperplasia; Lower urinary tract symptoms; Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Prostatic urethral lift; Urolift

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of prostatic urethral lift in Korean patients with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Thirty-two men with symptomatic BPH were consecutively treated in a tertiary care center in Korea. To be included in the present analysis, patients had to meet the following criteria: age >= 50 years, International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) >12, and prostate volume between 30 mL and 80 mL. Patients were evaluated up to a median follow-up period of 1 year post-procedure. The primary outcomes included symptom relief, improvement of quality of life (QOL), and preservation of sexual function. Results: All procedures were finished with a mean of 2.2 implants without any serious complication. The numbers of patients diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease were 16 (50.0%), 24 (75.0%), and 9 (28.1%), respectively. Patients experienced symptom relief by 1 week that was sustained for 12 months. The mean IPSS, QOL, and maximum flow rate improved to 43%, 70%, and 25% by 1 week, and to 41%, 60%, and 32% by 12 months (p<0.001), respectively. There were no occurrences of early urge incontinence, retrograde ejaculation, or erectile dysfunction. Patient-reported adverse events were mild and transient. Conclusions: Prostatic urethral lift is a safe and effective treatment for BPH in the Asian population. This treatment is minimally invasive, can be performed under local anesthesia, and may be an appropriate method for fragile patients.

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