Initial experience with prostatic urethral lift versus enucleation of the prostate: a retrospective comparative study.
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate
Core lower urinary tract symptom score
International prostate symptom score
Prostatic urethral lift
Urolift
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Nov 2023
18 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
07
08
2023
accepted:
13
11
2023
medline:
20
11
2023
pubmed:
19
11
2023
entrez:
19
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to assess initial results and patient characteristics of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) compared with those of bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (TUEB) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in older patients. This retrospective study was conducted at a single institution and involved 25 consecutive patients with BPH who underwent PUL between April 2022 and May 2023. Patient characteristics, operative details, and pre- and postoperative symptom scores were evaluated. The results were compared with those of a previously reported TUEB group (n = 55). The mean age of the patients in the PUL group was 74.6 years, and the mean prostate volume was 47.5 ml. The PUL procedure significantly improved urinary symptoms, particularly incomplete emptying (p = 0.041), intermittency (p = 0.005), and weak stream (p = 0.001). The PUL group had higher comorbidity scores (p = 0.048) and included older patients (p = 0.002) than the TUEB group. TUEB showed better improvements in some symptoms and maximum flow rate (p = 0.01) than PUL; however, PUL had a shorter operative time and fewer complications than TUEB (p < 0.001). The initial results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of PUL in older patients with BPH. Despite TUEB showing better outcomes in certain aspects than PUL, PUL offers advantages such as shorter operative time and fewer complications. Therefore, PUL can be considered a viable option for high-risk older patients with BPH.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to assess initial results and patient characteristics of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) compared with those of bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (TUEB) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in older patients.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study was conducted at a single institution and involved 25 consecutive patients with BPH who underwent PUL between April 2022 and May 2023. Patient characteristics, operative details, and pre- and postoperative symptom scores were evaluated. The results were compared with those of a previously reported TUEB group (n = 55).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean age of the patients in the PUL group was 74.6 years, and the mean prostate volume was 47.5 ml. The PUL procedure significantly improved urinary symptoms, particularly incomplete emptying (p = 0.041), intermittency (p = 0.005), and weak stream (p = 0.001). The PUL group had higher comorbidity scores (p = 0.048) and included older patients (p = 0.002) than the TUEB group. TUEB showed better improvements in some symptoms and maximum flow rate (p = 0.01) than PUL; however, PUL had a shorter operative time and fewer complications than TUEB (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The initial results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of PUL in older patients with BPH. Despite TUEB showing better outcomes in certain aspects than PUL, PUL offers advantages such as shorter operative time and fewer complications. Therefore, PUL can be considered a viable option for high-risk older patients with BPH.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37980529
doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01366-8
pii: 10.1186/s12894-023-01366-8
pmc: PMC10657556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
188Subventions
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : JP19H03793
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : JP23K08789
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug;23(8):2166-2172
pubmed: 22250183
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):418-25
pubmed: 25465970
Int J Urol. 2011 Nov;18(11):778-84
pubmed: 21951201
Eur Urol. 2019 Mar;75(3):358-367
pubmed: 30580902
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022 Nov;3(11):e754-e776
pubmed: 36273485
J Urol. 1996 Apr;155(4):1324-7
pubmed: 8632564
BJU Int. 2017 May;119(5):767-775
pubmed: 27862831
Urology. 2006 Aug;68(2):318-23
pubmed: 16904444
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Prostate. 2011 May;71(6):597-603
pubmed: 20945406
BJU Int. 2011 Jul;108(1):82-8
pubmed: 21554526
Biol Pharm Bull. 2020;43(12):1831-1838
pubmed: 33268700
Can J Urol. 2017 Jun;24(3):8802-8813
pubmed: 28646935
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E864-9
pubmed: 22938513
Eur Urol. 2017 Dec;72(6):986-997
pubmed: 28734706
Int J Urol. 2008 Sep;15(9):816-20
pubmed: 18657204
J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2161-7
pubmed: 23764081
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):570-581
pubmed: 27717522
Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):643-52
pubmed: 25937539
Urology. 2011 Jan;77(1):60-4
pubmed: 20951412
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2016 Aug;68(4):337-41
pubmed: 25732224