Efficacy and durability of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the management of acute and chronic urinary retention

Saud Alhelal, Parsa Nikoufar, Amr Hodhod, Prashidhi Pathak, Abdalla Bazazo, Husain Alaradi, Ruba Abdul Hadi, Loay Abbas, A. Kotb, A. Zakaria, H. Elmansy
{"title":"Efficacy and durability of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the management of acute and chronic urinary retention","authors":"Saud Alhelal, Parsa Nikoufar, Amr Hodhod, Prashidhi Pathak, Abdalla Bazazo, Husain Alaradi, Ruba Abdul Hadi, Loay Abbas, A. Kotb, A. Zakaria, H. Elmansy","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Our study aimed to assess the efficacy and durability of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in managing acute urinary retention (AUR), neurogenic chronic urinary retention (NCUR), and non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention (NNCUR). We also sought to compare outcomes in patients with preoperative urinary retention (UR) to those without.\nMethods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using prospectively gathered data from men who underwent HoLEP at our institution between October 2017 and July 2022. Patient demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including indications for the procedure, median urinary volume drained, or median postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) before catheterization or HoLEP. Chronic urinary retention (CUR) was defined as PVR 300 mL in males able to void and initial catheter drainage >1000 mL in males unable to void, in the absence of pain. NCUR and NNCUR were differentiated based on the presence of any significant illness or injury with a neurologic impact on the bladder. All patients had postoperative followup visits at one, three, six, and 12 months. Our evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) assessment, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), PVR, and catheter-free status.\nResults: Three hundred sixty-eight males who underwent HoLEP were included in our study. The UR group consisted of 189 patients (70 AUR, 42 NCUR, and 77 NNCUR), and the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) group was comprised of 179 individuals. There were no statistically significant differences between the NCUR and NNCUR subgroups regarding demographics and outcomes. At 12 months postoperative, the AUR group had a higher catheter-free rate than the CUR group (p=0.04), and other outcome variables were comparable between the two cohorts. The UR group had a significantly lower QoL score at one month (p=0.01) and a significantly lower IPSS score at one and 12 months (p=0.034 and p=0.018, respectively) than the LUTS cohort. During all followup visits, the UR group had a significantly higher PVR than the LUTS cohort. The successful first trial of void (TOV) rate for the UR and LUTS groups was 81% and 83.2%, respectively. At 12 months postoperative, the catheter-free rate for the UR and LUTS cohorts was 96.3% and 99.4%, respectively.\nConclusions: HoLEP is an effective and durable treatment for UR with a high catheter-free rate and comparable outcomes when performed to manage LUTS.","PeriodicalId":38001,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8756","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Our study aimed to assess the efficacy and durability of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in managing acute urinary retention (AUR), neurogenic chronic urinary retention (NCUR), and non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention (NNCUR). We also sought to compare outcomes in patients with preoperative urinary retention (UR) to those without. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using prospectively gathered data from men who underwent HoLEP at our institution between October 2017 and July 2022. Patient demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including indications for the procedure, median urinary volume drained, or median postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) before catheterization or HoLEP. Chronic urinary retention (CUR) was defined as PVR 300 mL in males able to void and initial catheter drainage >1000 mL in males unable to void, in the absence of pain. NCUR and NNCUR were differentiated based on the presence of any significant illness or injury with a neurologic impact on the bladder. All patients had postoperative followup visits at one, three, six, and 12 months. Our evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) assessment, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), PVR, and catheter-free status. Results: Three hundred sixty-eight males who underwent HoLEP were included in our study. The UR group consisted of 189 patients (70 AUR, 42 NCUR, and 77 NNCUR), and the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) group was comprised of 179 individuals. There were no statistically significant differences between the NCUR and NNCUR subgroups regarding demographics and outcomes. At 12 months postoperative, the AUR group had a higher catheter-free rate than the CUR group (p=0.04), and other outcome variables were comparable between the two cohorts. The UR group had a significantly lower QoL score at one month (p=0.01) and a significantly lower IPSS score at one and 12 months (p=0.034 and p=0.018, respectively) than the LUTS cohort. During all followup visits, the UR group had a significantly higher PVR than the LUTS cohort. The successful first trial of void (TOV) rate for the UR and LUTS groups was 81% and 83.2%, respectively. At 12 months postoperative, the catheter-free rate for the UR and LUTS cohorts was 96.3% and 99.4%, respectively. Conclusions: HoLEP is an effective and durable treatment for UR with a high catheter-free rate and comparable outcomes when performed to manage LUTS.
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
钬激光前列腺去核术(HoLEP)治疗急慢性尿潴留的疗效和持久性
简介我们的研究旨在评估前列腺钬激光去核术(HoLEP)在治疗急性尿潴留(AUR)、神经源性慢性尿潴留(NCUR)和非神经源性慢性尿潴留(NNCUR)方面的疗效和持久性。我们还试图比较术前有尿潴留(UR)和无尿潴留患者的治疗效果:我们利用前瞻性收集的数据进行了一项回顾性分析,这些数据来自 2017 年 10 月至 2022 年 7 月期间在我院接受 HoLEP 的男性患者。我们记录了患者的人口统计学特征和结局指标,包括手术适应症、中位排尿量或导尿或HoLEP术前中位排尿后残余尿量(PVR)。慢性尿潴留(CUR)的定义是:在无疼痛的情况下,能够排尿的男性 PVR 300 毫升,无法排尿的男性最初导尿管引流量>1000 毫升。NCUR和NNCUR是根据是否存在对膀胱有神经影响的重大疾病或损伤来区分的。所有患者均在术后 1、3、6 和 12 个月进行了随访。我们的评估包括国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量(QoL)评估、最大尿流率(Qmax)、PVR和无导尿管状态:共有368名男性接受了HoLEP手术。尿流率组有 189 名患者(70 名 AUR、42 名 NCUR 和 77 名 NNCUR),下尿路症状(LUTS)组有 179 名患者。在人口统计学和结果方面,NCUR 和 NNCUR 亚组之间没有明显差异。术后12个月时,AUR组的无导管率高于CUR组(P=0.04),两组的其他结果变量相当。与 LUTS 组相比,UR 组一个月的 QoL 评分明显较低(p=0.01),一个月和 12 个月的 IPSS 评分也明显较低(分别为 p=0.034 和 p=0.018)。在所有随访中,UR 组的 PVR 都明显高于 LUTS 组。UR 组和 LUTS 组的首次排尿成功率(TOV)分别为 81% 和 83.2%。术后12个月,UR组和LUTS组的无导管率分别为96.3%和99.4%:结论:HoLEP 是一种有效、持久的 UR 治疗方法,无导管率高,治疗 LUTS 的效果相当。
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Published by the Canadian Urological Association, the Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ) released its first issue in March 2007, and was published four times that year under the guidance of founding editor (Editor Emeritus as of 2012), Dr. Laurence H. Klotz. In 2008, CUAJ became a bimonthly publication. As of 2013, articles have been published monthly, alternating between print and online-only versions (print issues are available in February, April, June, August, October, and December; online-only issues are produced in January, March, May, July, September, and November). In 2017, the journal launched an ahead-of-print publishing strategy, in which accepted manuscripts are published electronically on our website and cited on PubMed ahead of their official issue-based publication date. By significantly shortening the time to article availability, we offer our readers more flexibility in the way they engage with our content: as a continuous stream, or in a monthly “package,” or both. CUAJ covers a broad range of urological topics — oncology, pediatrics, transplantation, endourology, female urology, infertility, and more. We take pride in showcasing the work of some of Canada’s top investigators and providing our readers with the latest relevant evidence-based research, and on being the primary repository for major guidelines and other important practice recommendations. Our long-term vision is to become an essential destination for urology-based research, education, and advocacy for both physicians and patients, and to act as a springboard for discussions within the urologic community.
期刊最新文献
Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-assisted bedside ureteric stent placement 2024 Canadian Urological Association endorsement of an expert report: Kidney involvement in tuberous sclerosis complex Sacral neuromodulation in pediatric refractory bladder and bowel dysfunction Fostering the continued growth of our association On vacation
×
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