首页> 外文期刊>Urology >A prospective randomized comparison of transurethral resection to visual laser ablation of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
【24h】

A prospective randomized comparison of transurethral resection to visual laser ablation of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

机译:经尿道切除与前列腺视觉激光消融治疗前列腺增生症的前瞻性随机比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) represents the accepted standard of surgical therapy for the management of symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, this is a major operative procedure associated with significant perioperative morbidity. Visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) utilizing a neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser represents a new technologic approach to the surgical management of BPH. We compared the relative safety and efficacy of these two surgical approaches in a prospective, randomized trial. METHODS. At 6 investigational sites in the United States, 115 men with symptomatic BPH more than 50 years of age and not in retention, were randomly assigned to undergo either TURP (59 patients) of VLAP (56 patients). VLAP patients received a mean of 10,200 J of energy delivered in a mean of 5.5 intraprostate laser applications. At preoperative baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively, all patients underwent clinical evaluations, including ultrasonic prostatic volume determination, standardized American Urological Association (AUA)-6 symptom score, peak urine flow, postvoid residual urine volume, and quality-of-life assessment. RESULTS. Compared to TURP, the VLAP procedure required less time (23.4 versus 45.2 minutes; P < 0.01) and shorter hospitalization (1.8 versus 3.1 days, P < 0.01). VLAP was associated with a significantly lower rate of serious treatment-related complications compared to TURP (10.7% versus 35.6%; P < 0.01). Only One (2.2%) patient undergoing VLAP experienced a greater than 2.2 g/dL decrease in hemoglobin compared to 40% of TURP patients (P = 0.01). No patient in the VLAP group required blood transfusion compared with 3.4% of those undergoing TURP. Of the 115 patients, clinical outcomes measured at 1 year showed a mean improvement in AUA-6 symptom scores of -9.0 for VLAP compared with -13.3 for TURP (P < 0.04), mean increase in peak urinary flow rate of 5.3 cc/s for VLAP compared with 7.0 cc/s for TURP (P = 0.27), and mean decrease in postvoid residual urine volume of -55.4 cc for VLAP compared with -138.8 cc for TURP (P < 0.01). At 1 year, 78.2% of patients undergoing VLAP indicated that their quality of life was improved compared with 93.0% of patients undergoing TURP (P = 0.03). When compared with TURP, treatment of BPH with VLAP is associated with less hemoglobin decrease, a lower likelihood of serious complication, and requires less procedure time and a shorter hospital stay. Through a 1-year follow-up, VLAP produced significant improvement over baseline in objective and subjective outcome measures. However, for 1-year improvement in AUA-6 symptom score, postvoid residual urine volume, and quality of life, VLAP was less effective than TURP. CONCLUSIONS. In this initial study in the United States, with relatively low-energy laser applications, VLAP did not result in as complete a removal of prostatic tissue as did TURP. Considering the lower morbidity, shorter procedure and hospitalization times, and the degree of effectiveness that was achieved even at the low-energy doses used in this study, VLAP appears to be a viable and safe alternative to standard TURP.
机译:目标经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)代表了由于良性前列腺增生(BPH)而导致的有症状膀胱出口梗阻的外科治疗方法。但是,这是与重大围手术期发病率相关的主要手术程序。利用钕:钇铝石榴石激光对前列腺进行可见激光消融(VLAP)代表了BPH外科治疗的新技术方法。我们在一项前瞻性随机试验中比较了这两种手术方法的相对安全性和有效性。方法。在美国的6个研究地点,随机将115名50岁以上有症状且未retention留的BPH男性随机分配接受TURP(59例)和VLAP(56例)。 VLAP患者在平均5.5次前列腺内激光应用中平均获得10200 J能量。在术前基线,术后3个月,6个月和1年时,所有患者均接受了临床评估,包括超声前列腺体积测定,标准的美国泌尿外科协会(AUA)-6症状评分,峰值尿流量,术后无残余尿量和质量生活评估。结果。与TURP相比,VLAP手术所需的时间更少(23.4对45.2分钟; P <0.01),住院时间更短(1.8对3.1天,P <0.01)。与TURP相比,VLAP与严重的治疗相关并发症的发生率显着降低(分别为10.7%和35.6%; P <0.01)。与40%的TURP患者相比,接受VLAP的患者中只有一名(2.2%)的血红蛋白下降幅度大于2.2 g / dL(P = 0.01)。 VLAP组中没有患者需要输血,而接受TURP的患者为3.4%。在115例患者中,在1年时测量的临床结果显示,VLAP的AUA-6症状评分平均改善-9.0,而TURP则为-13.3(P <0.04),峰值尿流率平均增加5.3 cc / s VLAP与TURP的7.0 cc / s相比较(P = 0.27),而VLAP与TURP的-138.8 cc相比,无效后残余尿量平均减少了-55.4 cc(P <0.01)。在1年时,接受VLAP的患者中有78.2%表示其生活质量得到了改善,而接受TURP的患者为93.0%(P = 0.03)。与TURP相比,VLAP治疗BPH与减少血红蛋白,严重并发症的可能性降低,需要较少的手术时间和缩短住院时间有关。通过1年的随访,VLAP在客观和主观结果指标方面均较基线有了显着改善。但是,对于1年AUA-6症状评分,无残留尿量和生活质量的改善,VLAP的疗效不如TURP。结论。在美国的这项初步研究中,在使用相对较低能量的激光的情况下,VLAP不能像TURP那样彻底清除前列腺组织。考虑到较低的发病率,较短的程序和住院时间,以及即使在本研究中使用的低能量剂量下也达到了有效程度,VLAP似乎是标准TURP的可行和安全的替代方案。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号