OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) - in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: patients with symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia and candidates for surgical treatment were selected. Both procedures were explained and they had choosen HoLEP or TURP. At the hospital were collected: age, date of birth, international prostate symptom score, urinary peak flow rate, prostate volume, post-voiding residual urine, globular volume and serum PSA. At the procedure operating time, morcellating time (HoLEP), bladder mucosal injury and intercurrences were collected. At the first postoperative day, globular volume and sodium. Besides that were observed the catheter indwelling time and hospital stay and after 90 days, urinary peak flow rate and international prostate symptom score. Statistical analisys have been done partially by Sinpe(r) and also by a professional team. RESULTS: twenty patients in HoLEP group and 21 at TURP were operated. Baseline urinary peak flow rate was 8 ml/s in both groups and preoperative international prostate symptom score was 22 in HoLEP and 20 in TURP, very similar. Operative time was 85 minutes in HoLEP and 60 in TURP, p<0.05. Hospital stay was 47 hours for HoLEP and 48 hours to TURP, p<0.05. At 90 day the urinary peak flow rate was raised to 21.5 ml/s in HoLEP group and to 20 ml/s in TURP and the median of international prostate symptom score had been reduced to score 3 in both groups. CONCLUSION: HoLEP is a feasible technique and is as effective as TURP on symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatment.
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) - in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS:patients with symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia and candidates for surgical treatment were selected. Both procedures were explained and they had choosen HoLEP or TURP. At the hospital were collected: age, date of birth, international prostate symptom score, urinary peak flow rate, prostate volume, post-voiding residual urine, globular volume and serum PSA. At the procedure operating time, morcellating time (HoLEP), bladder mucosal injury and intercurrences were collected. At the first postoperative day, globular volume and sodium. Besides that were observed the catheter indwelling time and hospital stay and after 90 days, urinary peak flow rate and international prostate symptom score. Statistical analisys have been done partially by Sinpe(r) and also by a professional team. RESULTS: twenty patients in HoLEP group and 21 at TURP were operated. Baseline urinary peak flow rate was 8 ml/s in both groups and preoperative international prostate symptom score was 22 in HoLEP and 20 in TURP, very similar. Operative time was 85 minutes in HoLEP and 60 in TURP, p<0.05. Hospital stay was 47 hours for HoLEP and 48 hours to TURP, p<0.05. At 90 day the urinary peak flow rate was raised to 21.5 ml/s in HoLEP group and to 20 ml/s in TURP and the median of international prostate symptom score had been reduced to score 3 in both groups. CONCLUSION: HoLEP is a feasible technique and is as effective as TURP on symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatment.
Authors: Soum D Lokeshwar; Benjamin T Harper; Eric Webb; Andre Jordan; Thomas A Dykes; Durwood E Neal; Martha K Terris; Zachary Klaassen Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2019-10
Authors: Young Hoon Kim; So Young Kwon; Eun Hwa Jun; Seung Tae Choi; Seong Jin Park; Yumi Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 1.817