Efficacy, safety, and perioperative outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate—a comparison of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary retention

被引:0
作者
Pawel Trotsenko
Christian Wetterauer
Philipp Grimsehl
Tilmann Möltgen
Susan Meierhans
Lukas Manka
Helge Seifert
Stephen Wyler
Maciej Kwiatkowski
机构
[1] Cantonal Hospital Aarau,Department of Urology
[2] University Hospital Basel,Department of Urology
[3] Academic Hospital Braunschweig,Department of Urology
来源
Lasers in Medical Science | 2021年 / 36卷
关键词
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; HoLEP; Lower urinary tract symptoms; LUTS; Urinary retention;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a valid treatment option to relieve bladder outlet obstruction in patients with large prostate volumes (PV). Its efficacy, tolerability, and safety are comparable to the ones of other laser treatments of the prostate and resection techniques. However, safety and efficacy of HoLEP have not been compared between patients with and without preoperative urinary retention. We included 350 patients (mean age 71.2 years) who had undergone HoLEP due to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention caused by prostatic hyperplasia. We evaluated the differences in peri- and postoperative outcomes and complications between patients with and patients without preoperative urinary retention. The mean PV was 115 cm3. PV was > 100 cm3 in 61.9% and < 100 cm3 in 38.1% of the patients. Perioperative complications occurred in 23 patients (6.6%), 15 of which (4.3%) required operative revision. We found no significant differences in terms of complication rates between patients with PV > 100 cm3 and patients with PV < 100 cm3. Mean catheterization-duration was 3.3 days. Preoperatively, 140 patients (40%) had a suprapubic or transurethral indwelling catheter; they did not differ from patients without preoperative catheter regarding postoperative catheter removal success rate, early postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 43 patients (12.3%). Median postoperative PSA-decline was 6.1 ug/l (89.8% drop). HoLEP is a safe and effective treatment for patients with LUTS or urinary retention and large PV. PV > 100 cm3 was not associated with higher complication rates or successful catheter-removal. Furthermore, functional outcomes were independent of preoperative catheterization.
引用
收藏
页码:1397 / 1402
页数:5
相关论文
共 116 条
[1]  
Wei JT(2005)Urologic diseases in America project: benign prostatic hyperplasia J Urol 173 1256-1261
[2]  
Calhoun E(2016)Comparison of holmium laser prostate enucleation outcomes in patients with or without preoperative urinary retention J Urol 195 1021-1026
[3]  
Jacobsen SJ(2007)Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial Eur Urol 52 1456-1463
[4]  
Johnsen NV(2006)Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70 g: 24-month follow-up Eur Urol 50 563-568
[5]  
Kammann TJ(2008)Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial Eur Urol 53 160-166
[6]  
Marien T(2010)Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement Eur Urol 58 384-397
[7]  
Pickens RB(1998)Recent developments in the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia Urology 51 23-31
[8]  
Miller NL(2004)Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients Urology 64 306-310
[9]  
Ahyai SA(2004)Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients J Urol 172 1012-1016
[10]  
Lehrich K(2004)Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a 2-center, prospective, randomized trial in patients with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia J Urol 172 1926-1929