共 20 条
Comparison of Photoselective Vaporization versus Holmium Laser Enucleation for Treatment of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia in a Small Prostate Volume
被引:17
作者:
Kim, Kang Sup
[1
]
Choi, Jin Bong
[1
]
Bae, Woong Jin
[1
]
Kim, Su Jin
[1
]
Cho, Hyuk Jin
[1
]
Hong, Sung-Hoo
[1
]
Lee, Ji Youl
[1
]
Kim, Sang Hoon
[2
]
Kim, Hyun Woo
[2
]
Cho, Su Yeon
[2
]
Kim, Sae Woong
[1
]
机构:
[1] Catholic Univ Korea, Seoul St Marys Hosp, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Catholic Univ Korea, St Pauls Hosp, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Seoul, South Korea
来源:
PLOS ONE
|
2016年
/
11卷
/
05期
关键词:
URINARY-TRACT SYMPTOMS;
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL;
TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION;
FOLLOW-UP;
METAANALYSIS;
OBSTRUCTION;
GREATER;
AGE;
D O I:
10.1371/journal.pone.0156133
中图分类号:
O [数理科学和化学];
P [天文学、地球科学];
Q [生物科学];
N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号:
07 ;
0710 ;
09 ;
摘要:
Objective Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) using GreenLight and Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an important surgical technique for management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of PVP using a 120WGreenLight laser with HoLEP in a small prostate volume. Methods Patients who underwent PVP or HoLEP surgery for BPH at our institutions were reviewed from May 2009 to December 2014 in this retrospective study. Among them, patients with prostate volumes < 40 mL based on preoperative trans-rectal ultrasonography were included in this study. Peri-operative and post-operative parameters-such as International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual urine volume (PVR), and complications-were compared between the groups. Results PVP was performed in 176 patients and HoLEP in162 patients. Preoperative demographic data were similar in both groups, with the exception of PVR. Operative time and catheter duration did not show significant difference. Significant improvements compared to preoperative values were verified at the postoperative evaluation in both groups in terms of IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR. Comparison of the postoperative parameters between the PVP and HoLEP groups demonstrated no significant difference, with the exception of IPSS voiding subscore at 1 month postoperatively (5.9 vs. 3.8, P< 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. Conclusion Our data suggest that PVP and HoLEP are efficient and safe surgical treatment options for patients with small prostate volume.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文