Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate: Is novel En Bloc Enucleation Technique Better Than the Traditional 2-Lobe Technique-A Prospective Randomized Study.

IF 1.1 0 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urology research & practice Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5152/tud.2024.23177
Abhay Dinkar Mahajan, Arpit Rajendra Sharma, Martand G Patil
{"title":"Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate: Is novel En Bloc Enucleation Technique Better Than the Traditional 2-Lobe Technique-A Prospective Randomized Study.","authors":"Abhay Dinkar Mahajan, Arpit Rajendra Sharma, Martand G Patil","doi":"10.5152/tud.2024.23177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the safety and efficacy of the en bloc technique with the standard 2-lobe technique for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study included patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who underwent HoLEP from September 2020 to March 2022, by en bloc or 2-lobe technique. Patient demographics, prostate volume, enucleation, morcellation and operative time, and incidence of postoperative incontinence were compared between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 64 patients (30 en bloc and 34 2-lobe techniques) who underwent HoLEP in this study. The mean age, prostate volume, creatinine, and PSA of patients were comparable in both groups [(68.53 vs. 67.55 years; P=.62), (79.43 vs. 79.88 g, P=.92), (1.08 mg/dL vs. 1.20 mg/dL, P=.35), (3.78 vs. 4.63 ng/mL; P=.376), respectively]. The enucleation time was significantly shorter in the en bloc group than in the 2-lobe group (54.2 vs. 61.67; P=.03). Additionally, the mean operative time was also comparatively shorter in the en bloc group than the 2-lobe group (72.36 vs. 80.50; P=.057). The improvement in the quality-of-life (QoL) score was significantly better with en bloc than the 2-lobe group (3.80 vs. 2.11; P=.01). There was a significant difference in stress urinary incontinence on days 1, 7, and 30 (P .001) with en bloc compared to the two-lobe technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the outcomes of en bloc and 2-lobe endoscopic enucleation of prostate techniques were comparable, the en bloc technique seems to be a better option in most patients undergoing HoLEP due to less enucleation and operative time and lowered stress urinary incontinence incidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"50 1","pages":"47-52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11059977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2024.23177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of the en bloc technique with the standard 2-lobe technique for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

Methods: This prospective study included patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who underwent HoLEP from September 2020 to March 2022, by en bloc or 2-lobe technique. Patient demographics, prostate volume, enucleation, morcellation and operative time, and incidence of postoperative incontinence were compared between the 2 groups.

Results: We included 64 patients (30 en bloc and 34 2-lobe techniques) who underwent HoLEP in this study. The mean age, prostate volume, creatinine, and PSA of patients were comparable in both groups [(68.53 vs. 67.55 years; P=.62), (79.43 vs. 79.88 g, P=.92), (1.08 mg/dL vs. 1.20 mg/dL, P=.35), (3.78 vs. 4.63 ng/mL; P=.376), respectively]. The enucleation time was significantly shorter in the en bloc group than in the 2-lobe group (54.2 vs. 61.67; P=.03). Additionally, the mean operative time was also comparatively shorter in the en bloc group than the 2-lobe group (72.36 vs. 80.50; P=.057). The improvement in the quality-of-life (QoL) score was significantly better with en bloc than the 2-lobe group (3.80 vs. 2.11; P=.01). There was a significant difference in stress urinary incontinence on days 1, 7, and 30 (P .001) with en bloc compared to the two-lobe technique.

Conclusion: Although the outcomes of en bloc and 2-lobe endoscopic enucleation of prostate techniques were comparable, the en bloc technique seems to be a better option in most patients undergoing HoLEP due to less enucleation and operative time and lowered stress urinary incontinence incidence.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前列腺钬激光去核术:前瞻性随机研究:新型整体去核技术是否优于传统的双叶技术?
目的比较前列腺钬激光去核术(HoLEP)的整体技术和标准双腔技术的安全性和有效性:这项前瞻性研究纳入了2020年9月至2022年3月期间接受前列腺钬激光剜除术(HoLEP)的良性前列腺增生症(BPH)患者。对两组患者的人口统计学、前列腺体积、去核、切除和手术时间以及术后尿失禁的发生率进行了比较:本研究共纳入了64名接受HoLEP术的患者(30名采用en bloc技术,34名采用2-lobe技术)。两组患者的平均年龄、前列腺体积、肌酐和 PSA 值相当[分别为(68.53 vs. 67.55 岁;P=.62)、(79.43 vs. 79.88 g;P=.92)、(1.08 mg/dL vs. 1.20 mg/dL;P=.35)、(3.78 vs. 4.63 ng/mL;P=.376)]。全切组的去核时间明显短于双叶组(54.2 vs. 61.67;P=.03)。此外,en bloc 组的平均手术时间也比 2-lobe 组短(72.36 对 80.50;P=.057)。全腔镜组的生活质量(QoL)评分改善明显优于两腔镜组(3.80 对 2.11;P=.01)。与双腔技术相比,en bloc术在第1、7和30天的压力性尿失禁方面有明显差异(P .001):结论:虽然en bloc和双叶内窥镜前列腺去核术的结果相当,但对于大多数接受HoLEP的患者来说,en bloc技术似乎是更好的选择,因为去核和手术时间更短,压力性尿失禁的发生率更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative Outcomes of Open Simple Prostatectomy in Men with or Without Prior History of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate. Diagnosing Dysfunctional Voiding Non-Invasively: The SHADE Criteria Approach. Erratum. Genitourinary Tuberculosis and the Potential Impact of Delayed Diagnosis in Europe. Histotopographic Reasons for Ventral Approach in Bulbous Non-Transecting Urethroplasty.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1