微创钬激光前列腺摘除(MiLEP)与HoLEP:倾向评分匹配队列围手术期结果的回顾性分析

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Prostate Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-16 DOI:10.1002/pros.70016
Jacob Schmidt, Bernhard Ralla, Andreas Maxeiner, Jorien Krediet, Holger Beutel, Ayoub Hidayat Allah, Nella Gagel, Henning Plage, Maha Ullmann, Robert Peters, Frank Friedersdorff, Martin Kanne
{"title":"微创钬激光前列腺摘除(MiLEP)与HoLEP:倾向评分匹配队列围手术期结果的回顾性分析","authors":"Jacob Schmidt, Bernhard Ralla, Andreas Maxeiner, Jorien Krediet, Holger Beutel, Ayoub Hidayat Allah, Nella Gagel, Henning Plage, Maha Ullmann, Robert Peters, Frank Friedersdorff, Martin Kanne","doi":"10.1002/pros.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a well-established, size-independent surgical treatment offering favorable perioperative outcomes. Recently, minimal invasive laser enucleation of the prostate (MiLEP) has been introduced as a miniaturized approach utilizing a 22 Fr endoscope. However, comparative perioperative data on MiLEP versus HoLEP remain scarce.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective propensity-matched (PSM) cohort analysis was conducted, comparing the perioperative outcomes of the first 100 MiLEPs performed at our center versus standard HoLEP. After the PSM of 2187 patients, data from 200 patients (HoLEP: n = 100, MiLEP: n = 100) treated at a high-volume laser center were analyzed. Key parameters included operative time, enucleated tissue volume, complication rates, and catheterization duration. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demographic characteristics, overall operative (36 vs. 35 min, p = 0.87), and enucleation times (22 vs. 23 min, p = 0.68) were comparable between MiLEP and HoLEP. However, MiLEP showed significantly shorter median morcellation times (5 vs. 3 min, p = 0.03), while coagulation time was longer (6 vs. 5 min, p = 0.02). Overall, complication rates were similar between both groups (15% vs. 16%, p = 0.85), with similar Clavien-Dindo distributions (Grade II: 13% vs. 11%; Grade IIIb: 2% in both groups). Recatheterization (8% vs. 4%, p = 0.23), macrohematuria requiring prolonged catheterization (1% vs. 5%, p = 0.1), and postoperative fever (4% vs. 5%, p = 0.73) showed no significant differences and were size-independent across prostates < 30, 30-59, and > 60 mL.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation of MiLEP is safe and feasible in a center with HoLEP experience, demonstrating comparable perioperative outcomes. The miniaturized approach maintains surgical efficiency across different prostate sizes while reducing instrument size. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term functional outcomes and confirm the potential benefits of MiLEP regarding urethral trauma.</p>","PeriodicalId":54544,"journal":{"name":"Prostate","volume":" ","pages":"1299-1306"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally Invasive Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (MiLEP) Vs. HoLEP: Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes in a Propensity Score-Matched Cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Jacob Schmidt, Bernhard Ralla, Andreas Maxeiner, Jorien Krediet, Holger Beutel, Ayoub Hidayat Allah, Nella Gagel, Henning Plage, Maha Ullmann, Robert Peters, Frank Friedersdorff, Martin Kanne\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pros.70016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a well-established, size-independent surgical treatment offering favorable perioperative outcomes. Recently, minimal invasive laser enucleation of the prostate (MiLEP) has been introduced as a miniaturized approach utilizing a 22 Fr endoscope. However, comparative perioperative data on MiLEP versus HoLEP remain scarce.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective propensity-matched (PSM) cohort analysis was conducted, comparing the perioperative outcomes of the first 100 MiLEPs performed at our center versus standard HoLEP. After the PSM of 2187 patients, data from 200 patients (HoLEP: n = 100, MiLEP: n = 100) treated at a high-volume laser center were analyzed. Key parameters included operative time, enucleated tissue volume, complication rates, and catheterization duration. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demographic characteristics, overall operative (36 vs. 35 min, p = 0.87), and enucleation times (22 vs. 23 min, p = 0.68) were comparable between MiLEP and HoLEP. However, MiLEP showed significantly shorter median morcellation times (5 vs. 3 min, p = 0.03), while coagulation time was longer (6 vs. 5 min, p = 0.02). Overall, complication rates were similar between both groups (15% vs. 16%, p = 0.85), with similar Clavien-Dindo distributions (Grade II: 13% vs. 11%; Grade IIIb: 2% in both groups). Recatheterization (8% vs. 4%, p = 0.23), macrohematuria requiring prolonged catheterization (1% vs. 5%, p = 0.1), and postoperative fever (4% vs. 5%, p = 0.73) showed no significant differences and were size-independent across prostates < 30, 30-59, and > 60 mL.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation of MiLEP is safe and feasible in a center with HoLEP experience, demonstrating comparable perioperative outcomes. The miniaturized approach maintains surgical efficiency across different prostate sizes while reducing instrument size. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term functional outcomes and confirm the potential benefits of MiLEP regarding urethral trauma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prostate\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1299-1306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prostate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.70016\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prostate","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.70016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:钬激光前列腺摘除(HoLEP)是一种成熟的、与尺寸无关的手术治疗方法,可提供良好的围手术期预后。最近,微创激光前列腺摘除(MiLEP)作为一种利用22fr内窥镜的小型化方法被引入。然而,MiLEP与HoLEP围手术期的比较数据仍然很少。材料和方法:进行回顾性倾向匹配(PSM)队列分析,比较本中心前100例milep与标准HoLEP的围手术期结果。在2187例患者的PSM后,分析了200例患者(HoLEP: n = 100, MiLEP: n = 100)在大容量激光中心治疗的数据。关键参数包括手术时间、去核组织体积、并发症发生率和置管时间。结果:MiLEP和HoLEP的人口学特征、总手术时间(36 vs 35 min, p = 0.87)和去核时间(22 vs 23 min, p = 0.68)具有可比性。然而,MiLEP的中位分凝时间较短(5 vs. 3 min, p = 0.03),而凝血时间较长(6 vs. 5 min, p = 0.02)。总体而言,两组的并发症发生率相似(15% vs. 16%, p = 0.85), Clavien-Dindo分布相似(II级:13% vs. 11%;IIIb级:两组均为2%)。再置尿(8% vs. 4%, p = 0.23)、需要延长置尿时间的血尿(1% vs. 5%, p = 0.1)和术后发热(4% vs. 5%, p = 0.73)在60ml前列腺中无显著差异,且与大小无关。结论:在有HoLEP经验的中心实施MiLEP是安全可行的,围手术期疗效相当。小型化的入路在减少器械尺寸的同时,保持了不同前列腺尺寸的手术效率。需要进一步的研究来评估长期功能结果,并确认MiLEP治疗尿道创伤的潜在益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimally Invasive Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (MiLEP) Vs. HoLEP: Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes in a Propensity Score-Matched Cohort.

Background: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a well-established, size-independent surgical treatment offering favorable perioperative outcomes. Recently, minimal invasive laser enucleation of the prostate (MiLEP) has been introduced as a miniaturized approach utilizing a 22 Fr endoscope. However, comparative perioperative data on MiLEP versus HoLEP remain scarce.

Materials and methods: A retrospective propensity-matched (PSM) cohort analysis was conducted, comparing the perioperative outcomes of the first 100 MiLEPs performed at our center versus standard HoLEP. After the PSM of 2187 patients, data from 200 patients (HoLEP: n = 100, MiLEP: n = 100) treated at a high-volume laser center were analyzed. Key parameters included operative time, enucleated tissue volume, complication rates, and catheterization duration. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: Demographic characteristics, overall operative (36 vs. 35 min, p = 0.87), and enucleation times (22 vs. 23 min, p = 0.68) were comparable between MiLEP and HoLEP. However, MiLEP showed significantly shorter median morcellation times (5 vs. 3 min, p = 0.03), while coagulation time was longer (6 vs. 5 min, p = 0.02). Overall, complication rates were similar between both groups (15% vs. 16%, p = 0.85), with similar Clavien-Dindo distributions (Grade II: 13% vs. 11%; Grade IIIb: 2% in both groups). Recatheterization (8% vs. 4%, p = 0.23), macrohematuria requiring prolonged catheterization (1% vs. 5%, p = 0.1), and postoperative fever (4% vs. 5%, p = 0.73) showed no significant differences and were size-independent across prostates < 30, 30-59, and > 60 mL.

Conclusion: Implementation of MiLEP is safe and feasible in a center with HoLEP experience, demonstrating comparable perioperative outcomes. The miniaturized approach maintains surgical efficiency across different prostate sizes while reducing instrument size. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term functional outcomes and confirm the potential benefits of MiLEP regarding urethral trauma.

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
Prostate
Prostate 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
180
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Prostate is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to original studies of this organ and the male accessory glands. It serves as an international medium for these studies, presenting comprehensive coverage of clinical, anatomic, embryologic, physiologic, endocrinologic, and biochemical studies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信