4.6 Article

Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a Randomized clinical trial

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 1456-1464

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.053

关键词

benign prostatic hyperplasia; BPH; benign prostatic obstruction; BPO; holmium; holmium laser enucleation; HoLEP; laser surgery; TURP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To report 3-yr follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Methods: A total of 200 patients with urodynamic obstruction and a prostate volume of less than 100 cc were prospectively randomised and assigned to HoLEP or TURP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and followed at 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 mo postoperatively. American Urological Association Symptom Score (AUA SS), maximum flow rate (Q(max)), and postvoid residual (PVR) [urine] volume were obtained at each follow-up. Perioperative data and postoperative outcome were compared. All complications were recorded. Results: AUA SS were significantly better 2 yr postoperatively in the HoLEP group (1.7 vs. 3.9, p < 0.0001) and similar at 3 yr (2.7 vs. 3.3, p = 0.17). PVR volume was significantly better 2 yr (5.6 vs. 19.9 ml, p < 0.001) and 3 yr (8.4 vs. 20.2 ml, p = 0.012) postoperatively in HoLEP patients. Q(max) was similar in the HoLEP and TURP groups at 2 yr (28.0 vs. 29.1 ml/s, p = 0.83) and at 3 yr (29.0 vs. 27.5 ml/s, p = 0.41) postoperatively. Late complications consisted of urethral strictures, bladder-neck contractures, and BPH recurrence; reoperation rates were 7.2% in the HoLEP and 6.6% in the TURP group (p = 1.0). Conclusions: After 2 and 3 yr of follow-up, HoLEP micturition outcomes compare favourably with TURP. Late complications are equally low. HoLEP may be a real alternative to TURP. (c) 2007 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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