Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate is Safe for Patients Above 80 Years: A Prospective Study
2
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of age on the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: A total of 579 patients underwent HoLEP procedure performed by a single surgeon (SJO) between December 2009 and May 2013. The perioperative and functional outcomes of patients in the age groups of 50–59 (group A, n=44), 60–69 (group B, n=253), 70–79 (group C, n=244), and ≥80 years (group D, n=38) were compared. The Clavien-Dindo system was used to evaluate clinical outcomes. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume, and urinary continence were used to assess functional outcomes. Results: In this study, the patients ≥80 years had significantly higher presence of hypertension (P=0.007), total prostate volumes (P=0.024), transitional zone volume (P=0.002), American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (P=0.006), urinary retention (P=0.032), and anticoagulation use (P=0.008) at preoperative period. Moreover, the mean values of operation time, enucleation time, morcellation time, and enucleation weight were higher in group D compared with other group patients (P=0.002, P=0.010, P<0.01, and P=0.009, respectively). Patients aged ≥80 years had a longer hospital stay time (2.9±1.8 days) than other groups (group A, 2.3±0.7 days; group B, 2.3±0.7 days vs. group C, 2.4±0.7 days; P=0.001). All groups were similar in regard to the incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo grade) post operatively (P>0.05). All the patients in the present study showed improvement in functional outcomes after HoLEP. By the sixth month, there were no significant differences in IPSS, quality of life, Qmax, and PVR among the groups (P>0.05). Conclusions: Compared with younger patients, the patients aged ≥80 years had a similar overall morbidity and 6-month functional outcomes of HoLEP. HoLEP is a safe and effective treatment for BPH among the elderly.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of age on the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: A total of 579 patients underwent HoLEP procedure performed by a single surgeon (SJO) between December 2009 and May 2013. The perioperative and functional outcomes of patients in the age groups of 50–59 (group A, n=44), 60–69 (group B, n=253), 70–79 (group C, n=244), and ≥80 years (group D, n=38) were compared. The Clavien-Dindo system was used to evaluate clinical outcomes. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume, and urinary continence were used to assess functional outcomes. Results: In this study, the patients ≥80 years had significantly higher presence of hypertension (P=0.007), total prostate volumes (P=0.024), transitional zone volume (P=0.002), American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (P=0.006), urinary retention (P=0.032), and anticoagulation use (P=0.008) at preoperative period. Moreover, the mean values of operation time, enucleation time, morcellation time, and enucleation weight were higher in group D compared with other group patients (P=0.002, P=0.010, P<0.01, and P=0.009, respectively). Patients aged ≥80 years had a longer hospital stay time (2.9±1.8 days) than other groups (group A, 2.3±0.7 days; group B, 2.3±0.7 days vs. group C, 2.4±0.7 days; P=0.001). All groups were similar in regard to the incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo grade) post operatively (P>0.05). All the patients in the present study showed improvement in functional outcomes after HoLEP. By the sixth month, there were no significant differences in IPSS, quality of life, Qmax, and PVR among the groups (P>0.05). Conclusions: Compared with younger patients, the patients aged ≥80 years had a similar overall morbidity and 6-month functional outcomes of HoLEP. HoLEP is a safe and effective treatment for BPH among the elderly.
참고문헌 (13)
- El-Husseiny T, "Transurethral ethanol ablation of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: long-term follow-up", J Endourol, 25, pp.477~480 (2011)
- Lepor H, "Djavan B. α-Blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia:the new era", Curr Opin Urol, 22, pp.7~15 (2012)
- Holman CD, "Mortality and prostate cancer risk in 19,598 men after surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia", BJU Int, 84, pp.37~42 (1999)
- Michalak J, "HoLEP: the gold standard for the surgical management of BPH in the 21(st) Century", Am J Clin Exp Urol, 3, pp.36~42 (2015)
- Jeong CW, "Enucleation ratio efficacy might be a better predictor to assess learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate", Int Braz J Urol, 38, pp.362~371 (2012)
- Dindo D, "Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336patients and results of a survey", Ann Surg, 240, pp.205~213 (2004)
- Lusuardi L, "New emerging technologies in benign prostatic hyperplasia", Curr Opin Urol, 23, pp.25~29 (2013)
- Uchida T, "Factors influencing morbidity in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate", Urology, 53, pp.98~105 (1999)
- Matani Y, "Transurethral prostatectomy: a long-term follow-up study of 166 patients over 80 years of age", Eur Urol, 30, pp.414~417 (1996)
- Mmeje CO, "Agestratified outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate", BJU Int, 112, pp.982~989 (2013)
- Marmiroli R, "Standard surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia is safe for patients over 75 years: analysis of 100 cases from a high-volume urologic center", Clinics (Sao Paulo), 67, pp.1415~1418 (2012)
- Songzhe Piao, "Clinical and Pathological Characteristics of Hard Nodules Resistant to Morcellation During Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate", International Neurourology Journal, 19(2), pp.90~98 (2015), 대한배뇨장애요실금학회
- Nadu A, "Are indications for prostatectomy in octogenarians the same as for younger men?", Int Urol Nephrol, 36, pp.47~50 (2004)