A prospective, randomized trial comparing the use of KTP (GreenLight) laser versus electroresection-supplemented laser in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

C. Torz, S. Poletajew, P. Radziszewski
{"title":"A prospective, randomized trial comparing the use of KTP (GreenLight) laser versus electroresection-supplemented laser in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia","authors":"C. Torz, S. Poletajew, P. Radziszewski","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2016.859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Photoselective laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is one of the most popular techniques of treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The aim of this study was to assess the risk of thermal damage to the external urethral sphincter during PVP at distal part of prostatic urethra. Material and methods 66 men submitted to PVP with 80-W Green Light Laser were randomly assigned to receive standard PVP only (group A) or PVP in proximal part followed by transurethral resection in distal part of prostatic urethra (group B). Primary end-points of the study assessed at baseline, 24 hours and 8 weeks after the surgery were: urinary continence, urinary flow (Qmax), post void urine retention (PVR), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL). Results Per protocol analysis was eventually performed in 60 patients. Study groups did not differ in age, preoperative continence, values of Qmax, PVR, IPSS, QoL, or the rate of complete urinary retention (p >0.05). During the 8-week follow-up no patient reported urinary incontinence, while decrease in IPSS (16.3 vs. 14.9, p >0.05), QoL improvement (4.7 vs. 4.7, p >0.05), increase in Qmax (18.2 vs. 17.4, p >0.05) were similar in both study groups. Patients assigned to group B were more likely to have bleeding complications (85.2% vs. 18.2%), including patients requiring transfusion (14.8% vs. 0%). Moreover, postoperative catheterization time was shorter in group A (29.1 hrs vs. 37.2 hrs, p = 0.04). Conclusions Laser vaporization for treatment of BPH is safe and effective, with no significant effect on the risk of urinary incontinence in comparison to traditional methods.","PeriodicalId":86295,"journal":{"name":"Urologia polska","volume":"69 1","pages":"391 - 395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2016.859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction Photoselective laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is one of the most popular techniques of treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The aim of this study was to assess the risk of thermal damage to the external urethral sphincter during PVP at distal part of prostatic urethra. Material and methods 66 men submitted to PVP with 80-W Green Light Laser were randomly assigned to receive standard PVP only (group A) or PVP in proximal part followed by transurethral resection in distal part of prostatic urethra (group B). Primary end-points of the study assessed at baseline, 24 hours and 8 weeks after the surgery were: urinary continence, urinary flow (Qmax), post void urine retention (PVR), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL). Results Per protocol analysis was eventually performed in 60 patients. Study groups did not differ in age, preoperative continence, values of Qmax, PVR, IPSS, QoL, or the rate of complete urinary retention (p >0.05). During the 8-week follow-up no patient reported urinary incontinence, while decrease in IPSS (16.3 vs. 14.9, p >0.05), QoL improvement (4.7 vs. 4.7, p >0.05), increase in Qmax (18.2 vs. 17.4, p >0.05) were similar in both study groups. Patients assigned to group B were more likely to have bleeding complications (85.2% vs. 18.2%), including patients requiring transfusion (14.8% vs. 0%). Moreover, postoperative catheterization time was shorter in group A (29.1 hrs vs. 37.2 hrs, p = 0.04). Conclusions Laser vaporization for treatment of BPH is safe and effective, with no significant effect on the risk of urinary incontinence in comparison to traditional methods.
一项前瞻性,随机试验比较使用KTP (GreenLight)激光与电切除辅助激光治疗良性前列腺增生
前列腺光选择性激光汽化术(PVP)是治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)最常用的技术之一。本研究的目的是评估前列腺尿道远端PVP时外尿道括约肌热损伤的风险。材料和方法66例接受80 w绿光激光PVP治疗的男性,随机分为仅接受标准PVP治疗(A组)或在近端部分进行PVP治疗后经尿道前列腺尿道远端部分切除术(B组)。在基线、术后24小时和8周评估研究的主要终点:尿失禁、尿流(Qmax)、空后尿潴留(PVR)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量(QoL)。结果最终对60例患者进行了方案分析。研究组在年龄、术前尿失禁、Qmax值、PVR、IPSS、QoL或完全尿潴留率方面没有差异(p < 0.05)。8周随访期间,无患者报告尿失禁,两组IPSS下降(16.3比14.9,p >.05)、生活质量改善(4.7比4.7,p b> 0.05)、Qmax增加(18.2比17.4,p b> 0.05)相似。B组患者更有可能出现出血并发症(85.2%对18.2%),包括需要输血的患者(14.8%对0%)。A组术后置管时间更短(29.1 h比37.2 h, p = 0.04)。结论激光汽化治疗前列腺增生安全有效,与传统方法相比,对尿失禁风险无显著影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信