目前采用 MOSES 2.0 技术的 HOLEP 与黄金标准 TURP 的比较。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY World Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1007/s00345-024-05309-2
Jamie Michael, Perry Xu, Nick Dean, Meera Ganesh, Kyle Tsai, Nabila Khondakar, Aidan Raikar, Amy Krambeck
{"title":"目前采用 MOSES 2.0 技术的 HOLEP 与黄金标准 TURP 的比较。","authors":"Jamie Michael, Perry Xu, Nick Dean, Meera Ganesh, Kyle Tsai, Nabila Khondakar, Aidan Raikar, Amy Krambeck","doi":"10.1007/s00345-024-05309-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Bipolar TURP is regarded as the gold standard for treatment of BPH. Historically, when compared to HOLEP, bTURP has been found to have shorter operative times and is considered more efficient. We sought to compare the efficiency, efficacy, and safety of current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology (MOLEP) and bTURP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent bTURP or MOLEP at our institution between 2018 and 2023. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics were collected for analysis. Analysis was done with SPSS software with significance defined as p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 195 bTURPs and 918 MOLEPs performed at our institution. Men undergoing MOLEP had significantly higher pre-op prostate volume and resected weight (61 ml v 123 ml and 15 g v 70 g, p < 0.001, respectively) when compared to bTURP patients. MOLEP was completed in significantly less OR and procedure time compared to bTURP (66 min vs. 73 min, p < 0.001; 90 min vs. 111 min, p = 0.026, respectively). These results remained significant when controlling for age and prostate volume. At a mean follow up of 3.7 months, HOLEP patients were significantly more likely to be medication (0 vs. 35.84% p < 0.001) and catheter free post-operatively (0.95% vs. 5.68%, p < 0.001) compared to bTURP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our contemporary cohort, MOLEP is faster and more efficient than bTURP. These findings remained significant despite being performed on larger prostates and in patients more likely to be anticoagulated. Furthermore, MOLEP patients are more likely to remain catheter and medication free at follow-up when compared to bTURP.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"42 1","pages":"633"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology compared to the gold standard TURP.\",\"authors\":\"Jamie Michael, Perry Xu, Nick Dean, Meera Ganesh, Kyle Tsai, Nabila Khondakar, Aidan Raikar, Amy Krambeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00345-024-05309-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Bipolar TURP is regarded as the gold standard for treatment of BPH. Historically, when compared to HOLEP, bTURP has been found to have shorter operative times and is considered more efficient. We sought to compare the efficiency, efficacy, and safety of current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology (MOLEP) and bTURP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent bTURP or MOLEP at our institution between 2018 and 2023. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics were collected for analysis. Analysis was done with SPSS software with significance defined as p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 195 bTURPs and 918 MOLEPs performed at our institution. Men undergoing MOLEP had significantly higher pre-op prostate volume and resected weight (61 ml v 123 ml and 15 g v 70 g, p < 0.001, respectively) when compared to bTURP patients. MOLEP was completed in significantly less OR and procedure time compared to bTURP (66 min vs. 73 min, p < 0.001; 90 min vs. 111 min, p = 0.026, respectively). These results remained significant when controlling for age and prostate volume. At a mean follow up of 3.7 months, HOLEP patients were significantly more likely to be medication (0 vs. 35.84% p < 0.001) and catheter free post-operatively (0.95% vs. 5.68%, p < 0.001) compared to bTURP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our contemporary cohort, MOLEP is faster and more efficient than bTURP. These findings remained significant despite being performed on larger prostates and in patients more likely to be anticoagulated. Furthermore, MOLEP patients are more likely to remain catheter and medication free at follow-up when compared to bTURP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"633\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05309-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05309-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:双极 TURP 被认为是治疗良性前列腺增生症的金标准。从历史上看,与 HOLEP 相比,双极 TURP 的手术时间更短,效率更高。我们试图比较目前的 HOLEP 与 MOSES 2.0 技术(MOLEP)和 bTURP 的效率、有效性和安全性:我们对 2018 年至 2023 年期间在本院接受 bTURP 或 MOLEP 的患者进行了回顾性审查。收集术前、术中和术后特征进行分析。使用 SPSS 软件进行分析,显著性定义为 p 结果:我们确定了在本院进行的 195 例 bTURP 和 918 例 MOLEP。接受 MOLEP 的男性术前前列腺体积和切除重量(61 毫升对 123 毫升,15 克对 70 克,P)明显更高:在我们的现代队列中,MOLEP 比 bTURP 更快、更有效。尽管对前列腺较大和更有可能接受抗凝治疗的患者进行了 MOLEP,但这些结果仍然很重要。此外,与 bTURP 相比,MOLEP 患者在随访时更有可能不使用导管和药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology compared to the gold standard TURP.

Purpose: Bipolar TURP is regarded as the gold standard for treatment of BPH. Historically, when compared to HOLEP, bTURP has been found to have shorter operative times and is considered more efficient. We sought to compare the efficiency, efficacy, and safety of current era HOLEP with MOSES 2.0 technology (MOLEP) and bTURP.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent bTURP or MOLEP at our institution between 2018 and 2023. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics were collected for analysis. Analysis was done with SPSS software with significance defined as p < 0.05.

Results: We identified 195 bTURPs and 918 MOLEPs performed at our institution. Men undergoing MOLEP had significantly higher pre-op prostate volume and resected weight (61 ml v 123 ml and 15 g v 70 g, p < 0.001, respectively) when compared to bTURP patients. MOLEP was completed in significantly less OR and procedure time compared to bTURP (66 min vs. 73 min, p < 0.001; 90 min vs. 111 min, p = 0.026, respectively). These results remained significant when controlling for age and prostate volume. At a mean follow up of 3.7 months, HOLEP patients were significantly more likely to be medication (0 vs. 35.84% p < 0.001) and catheter free post-operatively (0.95% vs. 5.68%, p < 0.001) compared to bTURP.

Conclusion: In our contemporary cohort, MOLEP is faster and more efficient than bTURP. These findings remained significant despite being performed on larger prostates and in patients more likely to be anticoagulated. Furthermore, MOLEP patients are more likely to remain catheter and medication free at follow-up when compared to bTURP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for kidney cancer and socio-occupational category: significant impact of chlorinated solvents (UroCCR 111). Correction: Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced and clinically positive nodes Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma treated with Nephroureterectomy: real-world data from the ROBUUST 2.0 Registry. Impact of the time interval between biopsy and radical prostatectomy on functional outcomes. Evaluating transurethral resection of the prostate over twenty years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Pressure reduction and suction characteristics of the new digital single use flexible ureteroscope with suction: an in-vitro experimental study.
×
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