| Literature DB >> 32944522 |
Xinglin Chen1, Qiuhong Man2, Xiyi Wei1, Xiaohan Ren1, Guangyao Li1, Zhongwen Lu1, Xu Zhang1, Chao Qin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the aging of the population, prostate hyperplasia is more and more perplexing to the old men. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of international prostatic symptom score-voiding/storage score ratio (IPSS-V/S), urodynamic examination, intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) and residual urine volume (RUV) on the efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) before operation.Entities:
Keywords: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH); holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP); international prostatic symptom score-voiding/storage score ratio (IPSS-V/S); intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP); predictive value; residual urine volume (RUV)
Year: 2020 PMID: 32944522 PMCID: PMC7475670 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Androl Urol ISSN: 2223-4683
Clinical characteristics and single factor analysis of the study patients
| Total | Successful | Unsuccessful | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient (n) | 96 | 68 | 28 | – |
| Age | 72.72±7.94 | 71.00±7.20 | 76.89±8.23 | 0.002 |
| IPSS (points) | 23.47±3.44 | 23.84±3.46 | 22.57±3.26 | 0.101 |
| Voiding (points) | 14.29±2.74 | 14.81±2.33 | 13.04±3.25 | 0.012 |
| Storage (points) | 9 (8–10) | 9 (8–10) | 9 (8–12) | 0.331 |
| V/S | 1.63 (1.40–1.86) | 1.65 (1.47–1.86) | 1.35 (1.02–1.94) | 0.037 |
| Qmax (mL/s) | 7 (5–8) | 6 (4–7) | 8 (7–9) | <0.001 |
| IPP (mm) | 4.0 (0–5.0) | 5 (0–6) | 0 (0–5) | 0.007 |
| RUV (mL) | 116.04±20.44 | 110.44±17.66 | 129.64±20.63 | <0.001 |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, number, or median (Q1–Q3).
Multiple logistic regression analysis of factors associated with success rate of HoLEP
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P value | OR | 95% CI | P value | OR | 95% CI | P value | |||
| Age | 0.84 | 0.72–0.98 | 0.03 | 0.84 | 0.72–0.98 | 0.03 | 0.85 | 0.73–0.98 | 0.02 | ||
| Qmax | 0.44 | 0.18–0.88 | 0.02 | 0.40 | 0.18–0.88 | 0.02 | 0.46 | 0.23–0.91 | 0.03 | ||
| IPP | 1.37 | 1.03–1.81 | 0.03 | 1.36 | 1.04–1.80 | 0.03 | 1.31 | 1.01–1.70 | 0.04 | ||
| RUV | 0.97 | 0.92–1.01 | 0.15 | 0.96 | 0.92–1.01 | 0.13 | 0.94 | 0.90–0.98 | 0.00 | ||
| V/S | 0.85 | 0.09–7.90 | 0.88 | – | – | – | 6.20 | 1.48–32.45 | 0.01 | ||
| Voiding | 1.72 | 1.13–2.61 | 0.01 | 1.68 | 1.24–2.29 | 0.00 | – | – | – | ||
OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 1Nomogram of different factors associated with success rate of HoLEP.