Efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the Greenlight XPS 180W laser and simple prostatectomy for high-volume prostate hypertrophy: a comparative analysis.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-13 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2023.191
Hubert Burdziak, Tomasz Syryło, Agnieszka Grabińska, Karol Burdziak, Janusz Ławiński, Monika Tomaka, Henryk Zieliński
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the Greenlight XPS 180W laser and simple prostatectomy for high-volume prostate hypertrophy: a comparative analysis.","authors":"Hubert Burdziak, Tomasz Syryło, Agnieszka Grabińska, Karol Burdziak, Janusz Ławiński, Monika Tomaka, Henryk Zieliński","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment using simple prostatectomy (SP) and using photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with a 180W GreenLight XPS laser in patients with high-volume prostate hypertrophy.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The study included 120 patients with LUTS symptoms caused by prostatic enlargement of more than 80 ml; 79 patients were treated with SP, while 41 were treated with PVP. The analysis included subjective the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL), and objective (Qmax), (Qave), and post-void residual volume (PVR) parameters before treatment and at an average of 38 months after surgical treatment. Early and late adverse effects and length of hospitalisation were assessed. Complication reports were performed according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis independently showed the effectiveness of both methods. Subjective parameters (IPSS, QoL), showed no significant differences. Patients treated with SP scored slightly better on objective parameters (Qmax, Qave, and PVR). Analysis of adverse effects and hospitalisation time were more favourable after PVP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SP and PVP were found to be comparable and highly effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of IPSS and QoL. Patients treated with the SP method obtained slightly better results of objective parameters such as Qmax, Qave, and PVR. Compared with SP, PVP has a more favourable safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11032029/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment using simple prostatectomy (SP) and using photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with a 180W GreenLight XPS laser in patients with high-volume prostate hypertrophy.

Material and methods: The study included 120 patients with LUTS symptoms caused by prostatic enlargement of more than 80 ml; 79 patients were treated with SP, while 41 were treated with PVP. The analysis included subjective the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL), and objective (Qmax), (Qave), and post-void residual volume (PVR) parameters before treatment and at an average of 38 months after surgical treatment. Early and late adverse effects and length of hospitalisation were assessed. Complication reports were performed according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system.

Results: The analysis independently showed the effectiveness of both methods. Subjective parameters (IPSS, QoL), showed no significant differences. Patients treated with SP scored slightly better on objective parameters (Qmax, Qave, and PVR). Analysis of adverse effects and hospitalisation time were more favourable after PVP.

Conclusions: SP and PVP were found to be comparable and highly effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of IPSS and QoL. Patients treated with the SP method obtained slightly better results of objective parameters such as Qmax, Qave, and PVR. Compared with SP, PVP has a more favourable safety profile.

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
使用 Greenlight XPS 180W 激光对前列腺进行光选择性汽化和单纯前列腺切除术治疗高容量前列腺肥大的疗效和安全性:对比分析。
简介本研究旨在比较对高体积前列腺肥大患者使用单纯前列腺切除术(SP)和使用 180W GreenLight XPS 激光进行前列腺光选择性汽化术(PVP)治疗的安全性和有效性:研究纳入了120名因前列腺增生超过80毫升而出现尿失禁症状的患者,其中79名患者接受了SP治疗,41名患者接受了PVP治疗。分析包括治疗前和手术治疗后平均 38 个月的主观国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量(QoL)、客观(Qmax)、(Qave)和排尿后残余尿量(PVR)参数。对早期和晚期不良反应以及住院时间进行了评估。并发症报告根据修改后的克拉维恩-丁多系统进行:结果:分析结果显示,两种方法均有效。主观参数(IPSS、QoL)无明显差异。接受 SP 治疗的患者在客观参数(Qmax、Qave 和 PVR)上的得分略高。对不良反应和住院时间的分析显示,PVP治疗效果更佳:就 IPSS 和 QoL 而言,SP 和 PVP 在治疗良性前列腺增生方面具有可比性和高效性。采用 SP 方法治疗的患者在 Qmax、Qave 和 PVR 等客观参数方面的效果略好。与 SP 相比,PVP 的安全性更佳。
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
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
Transperitoneal single-port robotic Firefly-guided bladder diverticulectomy and simple prostatectomy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy challenges in managing spinal cord neuropathy patients. Lessons learned from a scoping review. Robotic left nephrectomy with level IV inferior vena cava thrombectomy using the AngioVac system. Detrusor underactivity in symptomatic anterior pelvic organ prolapse. The role of gel-infused translabial ultrasound as a new modality in evaluation of female urethral stricture.
×
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:481959085
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