完善治疗良性前列腺增生症的 ThuLEP 手术策略:En-bloc、三叶和两叶技术的倾向得分匹配比较。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Francesco Cantiello, Fabio Crocerossa, Stefano Alba, Umberto Carbonara, Savio Domenico Pandolfo, Ugo Falagario, Alessandro Veccia, Giuseppe Ucciero, Matteo Ferro, Nicola Mondaini, Rocco Damiano
{"title":"完善治疗良性前列腺增生症的 ThuLEP 手术策略:En-bloc、三叶和两叶技术的倾向得分匹配比较。","authors":"Francesco Cantiello, Fabio Crocerossa, Stefano Alba, Umberto Carbonara, Savio Domenico Pandolfo, Ugo Falagario, Alessandro Veccia, Giuseppe Ucciero, Matteo Ferro, Nicola Mondaini, Rocco Damiano","doi":"10.1007/s00345-024-05136-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compares the peri-operative and functional outcomes of three distinct surgical techniques in Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The main aim is to assess whether the En-bloc, Three-lobe, and Two-lobe techniques have differential effects on surgical efficacy and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing ThuLEP for BPH between January 2019 and January 2024 at two tertiary centers. Propensity score matching was utilized to balance baseline characteristics among patients undergoing the different techniques. Surgical parameters, including operative time, enucleation time, morcellation time, energy consumption, and postoperative outcomes, were compared among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following propensity score matching, 213 patients were included in the analysis. Intraoperative analysis revealed significantly shorter enucleation, laser enucleation, morcellation and operative times and total energy delivered in the En-bloc and Two-lobe groups compared to the Three-lobe group. No significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in functional outcomes at the 3-month follow-up among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this study suggest that while the En-bloc and Two-lobe techniques may offer efficiency benefits and could be considered safe alternatives in ThuLEP procedures, the reduction in laser enucleation time and energy delivered did not necessarily translate into improvements in post operative storage symptoms or other functional outcomes for the patients. Surgeon preference and proficiency may play a crucial role in selecting the most suitable technique for individual patients. Future research should focus on larger-scale prospective studies to further validate these findings and explore potential factors influencing surgical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11263241/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refining surgical strategies in ThuLEP for BPH: a propensity score matched comparison of En-bloc, three lobes, and two lobes techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Cantiello, Fabio Crocerossa, Stefano Alba, Umberto Carbonara, Savio Domenico Pandolfo, Ugo Falagario, Alessandro Veccia, Giuseppe Ucciero, Matteo Ferro, Nicola Mondaini, Rocco Damiano\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00345-024-05136-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compares the peri-operative and functional outcomes of three distinct surgical techniques in Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The main aim is to assess whether the En-bloc, Three-lobe, and Two-lobe techniques have differential effects on surgical efficacy and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing ThuLEP for BPH between January 2019 and January 2024 at two tertiary centers. Propensity score matching was utilized to balance baseline characteristics among patients undergoing the different techniques. Surgical parameters, including operative time, enucleation time, morcellation time, energy consumption, and postoperative outcomes, were compared among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following propensity score matching, 213 patients were included in the analysis. Intraoperative analysis revealed significantly shorter enucleation, laser enucleation, morcellation and operative times and total energy delivered in the En-bloc and Two-lobe groups compared to the Three-lobe group. No significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in functional outcomes at the 3-month follow-up among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this study suggest that while the En-bloc and Two-lobe techniques may offer efficiency benefits and could be considered safe alternatives in ThuLEP procedures, the reduction in laser enucleation time and energy delivered did not necessarily translate into improvements in post operative storage symptoms or other functional outcomes for the patients. Surgeon preference and proficiency may play a crucial role in selecting the most suitable technique for individual patients. Future research should focus on larger-scale prospective studies to further validate these findings and explore potential factors influencing surgical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11263241/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05136-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05136-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究比较了铥激光前列腺去核术(ThuLEP)治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的三种不同手术技术的围手术期和功能预后。主要目的是评估En-bloc、Three-lobe和Two-lobe技术是否对手术疗效和患者预后有不同影响:对2019年1月至2024年1月期间在两家三级医院接受ThuLEP治疗良性前列腺增生症的患者进行了回顾性分析。采用倾向评分匹配法来平衡接受不同技术治疗的患者的基线特征。比较了各组之间的手术参数,包括手术时间、去核时间、剥离时间、能耗和术后结果:结果:经过倾向评分匹配,213 名患者被纳入分析。术中分析显示,与三叶组相比,En-bloc 组和双叶组的去核、激光去核、切除和手术时间以及总能量消耗明显更短。在术中和术后并发症方面,各组之间没有明显差异。结论:本研究的结果表明,虽然En-bloc和Two-lobe技术可能会带来效率上的优势,并可被视为ThuLEP手术的安全替代方案,但激光去核技术时间和能量输出的减少并不一定会转化为患者术后贮积症状或其他功能结果的改善。外科医生的偏好和熟练程度可能在为患者选择最合适的技术方面起着至关重要的作用。未来的研究应侧重于更大规模的前瞻性研究,以进一步验证这些发现并探索影响手术效果的潜在因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Refining surgical strategies in ThuLEP for BPH: a propensity score matched comparison of En-bloc, three lobes, and two lobes techniques.

Refining surgical strategies in ThuLEP for BPH: a propensity score matched comparison of En-bloc, three lobes, and two lobes techniques.

Purpose: This study compares the peri-operative and functional outcomes of three distinct surgical techniques in Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The main aim is to assess whether the En-bloc, Three-lobe, and Two-lobe techniques have differential effects on surgical efficacy and patient outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing ThuLEP for BPH between January 2019 and January 2024 at two tertiary centers. Propensity score matching was utilized to balance baseline characteristics among patients undergoing the different techniques. Surgical parameters, including operative time, enucleation time, morcellation time, energy consumption, and postoperative outcomes, were compared among the groups.

Results: Following propensity score matching, 213 patients were included in the analysis. Intraoperative analysis revealed significantly shorter enucleation, laser enucleation, morcellation and operative times and total energy delivered in the En-bloc and Two-lobe groups compared to the Three-lobe group. No significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in functional outcomes at the 3-month follow-up among the groups.

Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that while the En-bloc and Two-lobe techniques may offer efficiency benefits and could be considered safe alternatives in ThuLEP procedures, the reduction in laser enucleation time and energy delivered did not necessarily translate into improvements in post operative storage symptoms or other functional outcomes for the patients. Surgeon preference and proficiency may play a crucial role in selecting the most suitable technique for individual patients. Future research should focus on larger-scale prospective studies to further validate these findings and explore potential factors influencing surgical outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
×
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