[1]刘正超,蒋涛,陈志朋,等.绿激光直出式剜除和选择性汽化治疗良性前列腺增生症患者的随机对照研究[J].第三军医大学学报,2020,42(05):511-516.
 LIU Zhengchao,JIANG Tao,CHEN Zhipeng,et al.Green light top-firing sharp enucleation of prostate versus photoselective vaporisation of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled trial[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2020,42(05):511-516.
点击复制

绿激光直出式剜除和选择性汽化治疗良性前列腺增生症患者的随机对照研究(/HTML )
分享到:

《第三军医大学学报》[ISSN:1000-5404/CN:51-1095/R]

卷:
42卷
期数:
2020年第05期
页码:
511-516
栏目:
临床医学
出版日期:
2020-03-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Green light top-firing sharp enucleation of prostate versus photoselective vaporisation of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled trial
作者:
刘正超蒋涛陈志朋周远秀王永权周晓洲严滴石周占松沈文浩
陆军军医大学(第三军医大学)第一附属医院泌尿外科
Author(s):
LIU Zhengchao JIANG Tao CHEN Zhipeng ZHOU Yuanxiu WANG Yongquan ZHOU Xiaozhou YAN Dishi ZHOU Zhansong SHEN Wenhao

Department of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Chongqing, 400038, China

关键词:
前列腺增生激光剜除汽化
Keywords:
benign prostatic hyperplasia laser enucleation vaporization
分类号:
R181.32; R697.32; R699.8
文献标志码:
A
摘要:

目的对比经尿道直出光纤绿激光前列腺锐性剜除术(green light top-firing, sharp enucleation of the prostate, GTSEP)和绿激光选择性光汽化术(photoselective vaporisation of the prostate, PVP)治疗良性前列腺增生症(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)患者的有效性和安全性。方法选取2018年6月至2019年4月在本院诊治的154例BPH患者,按随机数字表法分为两组,每组77例,分别行GTSEP和PVP。评估两组患者术前一般情况,记录并比较术后第1个月和第6个月国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QoLs)、残余尿(PVR)、最大尿流率(Qmax)、前列腺体积(PV)、前列腺特异抗原(PSA)及并发症等。结果两组各有74例患者完成了随访。两组患者术前基本资料差异无统计学意义。术后1、6个月,两组患者下尿路症状均较术前明显改善,但IPSS、QoLs、PVR、Qmax、PSA差异无统计学意义。GTSEP组手术时间明显短于PVP组(41.0±16.4 vs 50.1±18.1 min,P=0.001),术后6个月GTSEP组前列腺体积小于PVP组(22.4±2.4 vs 23.3±1.9 mL,P=0.011)。两组术中和术后近期并发症差异无统计学意义。结论GTSEP与PVP治疗BPH均能获得较好的效果,GTSEP能更大程度去除增生的腺体组织,手术效率优于PVP。

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of a novel procedure, green light top-firing, sharp enucleation of the prostate (GTSEP) and the traditional procedure, photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MethodsA total of 154 patients diagnosed with BPH admitted in our hospital from June 2018 to April 2019 were recruited in this study, and then randomly divided into GTSEP group (n=77) and PVP group (n=77). All patients were assessed preoperatively and followed at 1 and 6 month postoperatively. International prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoLs), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), prostate volume (PV), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and complications were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. ResultsThere were 74 patients in each group completing the follow-up. No significant differences were found in baseline data between the 2 groups. At 1 and 6 months after surgery, both groups had their lower urinary tract symptoms significantly improved, but there were no significant differences in IPSS, QoLs, PVR, Qmax and PSA between the 2 groups. However, the GTSEP group had significantly shorter operation time (41.0±16.4 vs 50.1±18.1 min, P=0.001), and smaller prostate volume at 6 months after surgery (22.4±2.4 vs 23.3±1.9 mL, P=0.011) when compared with the PVP group. No notable differences were seen in the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications between the 2 groups. ConclusionBoth GTSEP and PVP achieve good efficacy and safety in BPH treatment. GTSEP can remove larger hyperplastic tissue than PVP, and is superior to PVP in operation efficacy.

参考文献/References:

[1]LUKACS B, CORNU J N, AOUT M, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia in real-life practice in france: a comprehensive population study[J]. Eur Urol, 2013, 64(3): 493-501. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.026. 
[2]KIM T H, HAN D H, RYU D S, et al. The impact of lower urinary tract symptoms on quality of life, work productivity, depressive symptoms, and sexuality in Korean men aged 40 years and older: A population-based survey[J]. Int Neurourol J, 2015, 19(2): 120-129. DOI:10.5213/inj.2015.19.2.120. 
[3]THOMAS J A, TUBARO A, BARBER N, et al. A multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing GreenLight-XPS laser vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: two-yr outcomes of the GOLIATH study[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 94-102. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.054. 
[4]AL-RAWASHDAH S F, PASTORE A L, SALHI Y A, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing monopolar with bipolar transurethral resection of prostate in benign prostatic obstruction: 36-month outcomes[J]. World J Urol, 2017, 35(10): 1595-1601. DOI:10.1007/s00345-017-2023-7. 
[5]CORNU J N, AHYAI S, BACHMANN A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 67(6): 1066-1096. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017. 
[6]NASPRO R, GOMEZ SANCHA F, MANICA M, et al. From “gold standard” resection to reproducible “future standard” endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: what we know about anatomical enucleation[J]. Italian J Urol Nephrol, 2017, 69(5): 446-458. DOI:10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02834-X. 
[7]EKEN A, SOYUPAK B. Safety and efficacy of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 180-W GreenLight XPS laser system in patients taking oral anticoagulants[J]. J Int Med Res, 2018, 46(3): 1230-1237. DOI:10.1177/0300060517747489. 
[8]LAI S C, PENG P X, DIAO T X, et al. Comparison of photoselective green light laser vaporisation versus traditional transurethral resection for benign prostate hyperplasia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and prospective studies[J]. BMJ Open, 2019, 9(8): e028855. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028855. 
[9]VALDIVIESO R, HUEBER P A, MESKAWI M, et al. Multicentre international experience of 532-nm laser photoselective vaporization with GreenLight XPS in men with very large prostates[J]. BJU Int, 2018, 122(5): 873-878. DOI:10.1111/bju.14208. 
[10]THOMAS J A, TUBARO A, BARBER N, et al. A multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing GreenLight-XPS laser vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: two-yr outcomes of the GOLIATH study[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 94-102. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.054. 
[11]ZHONG J, FENG Z H, PENG Y P, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety following holmium laser enucleation of prostate and transurethral resection of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia[J]. Urology, 2019, 131: 14-20. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.034. 
[12]MISRAI V, KEREVER S, PHE V, et al. Direct comparison of GreenLight laser XPS photoselective prostate vaporization and GreenLight laser en bloc enucleation of the prostate in enlarged glands Greater than 80 ml: a study of 120 patients[J]. J Urol, 2016, 195(4 Pt 1): 1027-1032. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.080. 
[13]ELSHAL A M, ELKOUSHY M A, EL-NAHAS A R, et al. GreenLightTM laser (XPS) photoselective vapo-enucleation versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled study[J]. J Urol, 2015, 193(3): 927-934. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.097. 
[14]PANTHIER F, PASQUIER J, BRUEL S, et al. En bloc greenlight laser enucleation of prostate (GreenLEP): about the first hundred cases[J]. World J Urol, 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI:10.1007/s00345-019-02941-1. 
[15]HERMANNS T, GROSSMANN N C, WETTSTEIN M S, et al. Is loss of power output due to laser fiber degradation still an issue during prostate vaporization using the 180 W GreenLight XPS laser?[J]. World J Urol, 2019, 37(1): 181-187. DOI:10.1007/s00345-018-2377-5. 
[16]MISRA V, PASQUIE M, BORDIER B, et al. Comparison between open simple prostatectomy and green laser enucleation of the prostate for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-centre experience[J]. World J Urol, 2018, 36(5): 793-799. DOI:10.1007/s00345-018-2192-z. 
[17]ENDO F, SHIGA Y, MINAGAWA S, et al. Anteroposterior dissection HoLEP: a modification to prevent transient stress urinary incontinence[J]. Urology, 2010, 76(6): 1451-1455. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.071. 
[18]TAO H, JIANG Y Y, JUN Q, et al. Analysis of risk factors leading to postoperative urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture following transurethral resection of prostate[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2016, 42(2): 302-311. DOI:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0500.

相似文献/References:

[1]许川山,王志刚,吴士明,等.光动力作用对膀胱癌细胞线粒体相关调控蛋白Bcl-2/Bax表达的影响[J].第三军医大学学报,2005,27(22):2219.
[2]付爱军,李建民,朱军,等.经皮激光椎间盘减压术治疗极外侧腰椎间盘突出症[J].第三军医大学学报,2010,32(04):403.
[3]任玉香,吴凤英,蔡惠芬,等.聚焦超声和激光加电凝治疗HPV高危亚型感染的CINⅠ疗效比较[J].第三军医大学学报,2012,34(04):350.
 Ren Yuxiang,Wu Fengying,Cai Huifen,et al.Focused ultrasound vs laser coagulation in treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Ⅰ with high-risk HPV infection: report of 618 cases[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2012,34(05):350.
[4]杨育成,郭志辉,郑芳.非剥脱性点阵激光用于手术伤口瘢痕治疗的观察研究[J].第三军医大学学报,2013,35(16):1766.
[5]李晓东,杨建民,王鹏.头面部爆炸伤颜面修复序列化治疗体会[J].第三军医大学学报,2011,33(21):2316.
[6]滕立新.钬激光切除术治疗浅表性膀胱肿瘤的疗效观察[J].第三军医大学学报,2012,34(05):448.
 Teng Lixin.Clinical efficiency of holmium laser resection for superficial bladder tumor[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2012,34(05):448.
[7]王敬旭,丁祥龙,容明灯,等.激光酸蚀联合纳米管的种植体表面粗化及分析[J].第三军医大学学报,2014,36(18):1895.
 Wang Jingxu,Ding Xianglong,Rong Mingdeng,et al.Analysis on laser and acid treatment of titanium implant with nanotubes[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2014,36(05):1895.
[8]陈洁,游箭,牟玮,等.经皮激光椎间盘减压术及其护理配合[J].第三军医大学学报,2004,26(20):0.[doi:10.16016/j.1000-5404.2004.20.006 ]
[9]游箭,牟玮,李强,等.经皮激光汽化减压术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床应用[J].第三军医大学学报,2004,26(21):0.[doi:10.16016/j.1000-5404.2004.21.019 ]
 YOU Jian,MU Wei,LI Qiang,et al.[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2004,26(05):0.[doi:10.16016/j.1000-5404.2004.21.019 ]
[10]华振宇,赵宏,朱冬梅,等.532激光视网膜光凝治疗糖尿病视网膜病变的疗效评价[J].第三军医大学学报,2004,26(23):0.[doi:10.16016/j.1000-5404.2004.23.023 ]

更新日期/Last Update: 2020-03-06