Outcomes of Top-Down Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate for Recurrent/Residual Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: One-Year Follow-Up.
Journal
Advances in urology
ISSN: 1687-6369
Titre abrégé: Adv Urol
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101476240
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
27
06
2022
revised:
23
08
2022
accepted:
10
09
2022
entrez:
17
10
2022
pubmed:
18
10
2022
medline:
18
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We carried out a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent top-down HoLEP for the management of recurrent BPH at our institution. Patients who had previously undergone TURP were assigned to group I, while those with no history of prostate surgery were allocated to group II. Preoperative clinical characteristics, enucleation time, resected tissue weight, morcellation time, energy used, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded and statistically analyzed. Patients were followed up postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life assessment (QoL), maximum urinary flow rate ( Two hundred and sixty-nine patients were included in this study. Group I consisted of 68 patients with recurrent BPH, while group II included 201 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between both groups. The median enucleation time for group I (67.5 min (25-200)) was not significantly longer than that for group II (60 min (19-165) ( For managing recurrent and nonrecurrent cases of BPH, top-down HoLEP is safe with comparable urinary functional outcomes. Patients with a history of previous prostate surgery can be counselled that their prior transurethral procedure does not reduce the benefits of HoLEP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36247205
doi: 10.1155/2022/5185114
pmc: PMC9553753
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5185114Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Ahmed S. Zakaria et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Urology. 2019 Apr;126:236
pubmed: 30711495
Eur Urol. 2005 Apr;47(4):499-504
pubmed: 15774249
Urology. 2013 May;81(5):1025-9
pubmed: 23465142
Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Mar;8(3-4):E235-40
pubmed: 24839489
Urol Ann. 2022 Apr-Jun;14(2):118-124
pubmed: 35711492
J Endourol. 2015 Jul;29(7):797-804
pubmed: 25705817
J Urol. 2017 Apr;197(4):1099-1107
pubmed: 27825972
J Urol. 2019 Oct;202(4):795-800
pubmed: 31009288
BJU Int. 2008 Jan;101(1):131-42
pubmed: 18086107
World J Urol. 2021 Jul;39(7):2337-2345
pubmed: 33486536
J Endourol. 2013 May;27(5):604-11
pubmed: 23167266
Urol Int. 2018;101(2):212-218
pubmed: 30016795
Eur Urol. 2006 Sep;50(3):563-8
pubmed: 16713070
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 08;9(7):e101615
pubmed: 25003963
Cureus. 2022 Feb 11;14(2):e22144
pubmed: 35308737
Eur Urol. 2006 Nov;50(5):969-79; discussion 980
pubmed: 16469429
J Urol. 2012 Apr;187(4):1336-40
pubmed: 22342512
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E845-50
pubmed: 22702908
J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):1012-6
pubmed: 15311026
BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):408-11
pubmed: 21883820
Int Urol Nephrol. 2019 Nov;51(11):1969-1974
pubmed: 31432393