Samer Morsy, Mahmoud Elfeky, Sherif Abdel-Rahman, Hesham Torad, Ahmed Rammah, Mina Safwat
{"title":"前列腺≥80克的ThuLEP与经尿道BPEP手术技术比较。术中及术后结果。一项前瞻性随机试验。","authors":"Samer Morsy, Mahmoud Elfeky, Sherif Abdel-Rahman, Hesham Torad, Ahmed Rammah, Mina Safwat","doi":"10.1080/20905998.2024.2395594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Though TURP remains the primary treatment for BPH, advancements in energy and technology have introduced innovative transurethral surgical options. In this study, we assessed and compared the effectiveness and safety of using thulium laser and bipolar for endoscopic enucleation of prostate exceeding 80 g.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Between January 2022 and July 2023, this study enrolled patients with LUTS due to BPH and a prostate size of ≥80 g. Group A underwent the BPEP procedure using a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope with plasma kinetic system enucleation loops, while Group B underwent the ThuLEP procedure using a 120-200 W Revolix DUO® Thulium laser. Data collection included prostate size, PSA levels, enucleation and morcellation time, and postoperative IPSS and IIEF-5 scores at one, 3, 6, and 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 108 patients, divided into Group A (BPEP) and Group B (ThuLEP), completed a 12-month follow-up. The mean age for group A was 67.72 ± 7.02 compared to group B which was 62.33 ± 5.86. While Group A compared to group B had higher mean enucleation (75.22 ± 10.55 vs. 67 ± 12.18) and total operative times (117.22 ± 17.76 vs.90.5 ± 18.29) (<i>p</i> = 0.037 & <0.001 respectively), no significant differences were observed in resected tissue weight, blood transfusion, and morcellation time. The ThuLEP group exhibited a shorter mean catheter period 2.94 ± 0.94 d compared to BPEP 3.33 ± 0.91 d and shorter mean hospital stay period of 1.94 ± 0.54 compared to2.11 ± 0.32, though not statistically significant. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, Qmax, PVRU, and IIEF-5 at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, showed no differences between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ThuLEP shows better perioperative parameters in comparison to BPEP. Nevertheless, there are no notable differences in functional results and complications between the two techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":8113,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Urology","volume":"23 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11703526/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing surgical techniques: ThuLEP and transurethral BPEP for prostate over 80 grams. Intraoperative and postoperative results. A prospective randomized trial.\",\"authors\":\"Samer Morsy, Mahmoud Elfeky, Sherif Abdel-Rahman, Hesham Torad, Ahmed Rammah, Mina Safwat\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20905998.2024.2395594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Though TURP remains the primary treatment for BPH, advancements in energy and technology have introduced innovative transurethral surgical options. In this study, we assessed and compared the effectiveness and safety of using thulium laser and bipolar for endoscopic enucleation of prostate exceeding 80 g.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Between January 2022 and July 2023, this study enrolled patients with LUTS due to BPH and a prostate size of ≥80 g. Group A underwent the BPEP procedure using a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope with plasma kinetic system enucleation loops, while Group B underwent the ThuLEP procedure using a 120-200 W Revolix DUO® Thulium laser. Data collection included prostate size, PSA levels, enucleation and morcellation time, and postoperative IPSS and IIEF-5 scores at one, 3, 6, and 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 108 patients, divided into Group A (BPEP) and Group B (ThuLEP), completed a 12-month follow-up. The mean age for group A was 67.72 ± 7.02 compared to group B which was 62.33 ± 5.86. While Group A compared to group B had higher mean enucleation (75.22 ± 10.55 vs. 67 ± 12.18) and total operative times (117.22 ± 17.76 vs.90.5 ± 18.29) (<i>p</i> = 0.037 & <0.001 respectively), no significant differences were observed in resected tissue weight, blood transfusion, and morcellation time. The ThuLEP group exhibited a shorter mean catheter period 2.94 ± 0.94 d compared to BPEP 3.33 ± 0.91 d and shorter mean hospital stay period of 1.94 ± 0.54 compared to2.11 ± 0.32, though not statistically significant. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, Qmax, PVRU, and IIEF-5 at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, showed no differences between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ThuLEP shows better perioperative parameters in comparison to BPEP. Nevertheless, there are no notable differences in functional results and complications between the two techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11703526/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20905998.2024.2395594\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20905998.2024.2395594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的：虽然TURP仍然是BPH的主要治疗方法，但能源和技术的进步已经引入了创新的经尿道手术选择。在这项研究中，我们评估并比较了使用铥激光和双极激光治疗超过80 g的内镜下前列腺摘除的有效性和安全性。患者和方法：在2022年1月至2023年7月期间，本研究纳入了因前列腺肥大和前列腺大小≥80g而发生LUTS的患者。A组采用26 Fr连续流切除镜和等离子体动力学系统去核环进行BPEP手术，B组采用120-200 W Revolix DUO®铥激光器进行ThuLEP手术。收集的数据包括前列腺大小、PSA水平、去核和分块时间，以及术后1、3、6和12个月的IPSS和IIEF-5评分。结果：108例患者分为A组（BPEP）和B组（ThuLEP），完成了12个月的随访。A组患者平均年龄67.72±7.02岁，B组患者平均年龄62.33±5.86岁。A组的平均去核率（75.22±10.55 vs. 67±12.18）和总手术次数（117.22±17.76 vs.90.5±18.29）高于B组（p = 0.037）。结论：ThuLEP的围手术期参数优于BPEP。然而，两种技术在功能结果和并发症方面没有显著差异。
Comparing surgical techniques: ThuLEP and transurethral BPEP for prostate over 80 grams. Intraoperative and postoperative results. A prospective randomized trial.
Background and purpose: Though TURP remains the primary treatment for BPH, advancements in energy and technology have introduced innovative transurethral surgical options. In this study, we assessed and compared the effectiveness and safety of using thulium laser and bipolar for endoscopic enucleation of prostate exceeding 80 g.
Patients and methods: Between January 2022 and July 2023, this study enrolled patients with LUTS due to BPH and a prostate size of ≥80 g. Group A underwent the BPEP procedure using a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope with plasma kinetic system enucleation loops, while Group B underwent the ThuLEP procedure using a 120-200 W Revolix DUO® Thulium laser. Data collection included prostate size, PSA levels, enucleation and morcellation time, and postoperative IPSS and IIEF-5 scores at one, 3, 6, and 12 months.
Results: A total of 108 patients, divided into Group A (BPEP) and Group B (ThuLEP), completed a 12-month follow-up. The mean age for group A was 67.72 ± 7.02 compared to group B which was 62.33 ± 5.86. While Group A compared to group B had higher mean enucleation (75.22 ± 10.55 vs. 67 ± 12.18) and total operative times (117.22 ± 17.76 vs.90.5 ± 18.29) (p = 0.037 & <0.001 respectively), no significant differences were observed in resected tissue weight, blood transfusion, and morcellation time. The ThuLEP group exhibited a shorter mean catheter period 2.94 ± 0.94 d compared to BPEP 3.33 ± 0.91 d and shorter mean hospital stay period of 1.94 ± 0.54 compared to2.11 ± 0.32, though not statistically significant. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, Qmax, PVRU, and IIEF-5 at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, showed no differences between the groups.
Conclusion: ThuLEP shows better perioperative parameters in comparison to BPEP. Nevertheless, there are no notable differences in functional results and complications between the two techniques.
期刊介绍：
The Arab Journal of Urology is a peer-reviewed journal that strives to provide a high standard of research and clinical material to the widest possible urological community worldwide. The journal encompasses all aspects of urology including: urological oncology, urological reconstructive surgery, urodynamics, female urology, pediatric urology, endourology, transplantation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary infections and inflammations. The journal provides reviews, original articles, editorials, surgical techniques, cases reports and correspondence. Urologists, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and scientists are invited to submit their contributions to make the Arab Journal of Urology a viable international forum for the practical, timely and state-of-the-art clinical urology and basic urological research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
