切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版)

中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (06) : 496 -500. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2022.06.003

临床研究

低功率钬激光与等离子剜除治疗中等体积前列腺增生的比较
顾志波1, 苏倩1, 陈建刚1, 陆明1,†()   
  1. 1. 226200　南通，江苏省南通市第一人民医院，南通大学第二附属医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-03 出版日期:2022-12-01
  • 通信作者: 陆明
  • 基金资助:
    南通市科技局指导项目(MSZ19135)

Comparison of low-power holmium laser enucleation and plamakinetic resection of prostate in the treatment of moderate volume benign prostatic hyperplasia

Zhibo Gu1, qian Su1, Jiangang Chen1, Ming Lu1,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Nantong No.1 People's Hospital, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Jiangsu 226200, China
  • Received:2021-11-03 Published:2022-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Ming Lu
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

顾志波, 苏倩, 陈建刚, 陆明. 低功率钬激光与等离子剜除治疗中等体积前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 496-500.

Zhibo Gu, qian Su, Jiangang Chen, Ming Lu. Comparison of low-power holmium laser enucleation and plamakinetic resection of prostate in the treatment of moderate volume benign prostatic hyperplasia[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(06): 496-500.

目的

对中等体积前列腺增生，通过比较低功率钬激光（LP-HoLEP）与等离子剜除（PKEP）的临床疗效，探讨低功率钬激光剜除前列腺增生的临床特点。

方法

收集我院自2018年6月至2020年6月104例前列腺增生（30 ml<V<80 ml）患者，其中LP-HoLEP组51例，PKEP组53例。统计围手术期患者年龄、血红蛋白（Hb）、前列腺体积V1、IPSS、Qmax、RUV、PSA、剜除时间、粉碎时间、膀胱冲洗时间、术后尿管留置时间、住院时间、切除腺体质量、血红蛋白下降量等。统计两组患者术前及术后7 d、14 d及21 d尿白细胞升高例数，及术后6个月的IPSS评分、PSA、前列腺体积V2等。

结果

两组患者年龄、Hb、V1、IPSS、Qmax、RUV、PSA、剜除时间、粉碎时间、腺体切除质量、血红蛋白下降值差异无统计学意义。LP-HoLEP组与PKEP组膀胱冲洗时间为（42.63±13.25）min和（51.67±11.65）min，术后尿管留置时间为（1.80±0.56） d和（2.23±0.83）d，术后平均住院天数为（2.90±0.70）d和（3.58±0.68）d，差异有统计学意义。两组患者尿白细胞升高例数随时间发生趋势性变化（F=132.842，P<0.05），两组患者术后尿白细胞增多差异无统计学意义，（F=1.960，P=0.183）。随访6个月，LP-HoLEP和PKEP组IPSS评分降至（5.23±1.67）和（5.70±1.89），PSA降至（1.17±0.40）和（1.04±0.37）ng/dl，前列腺体积V2降至（15.93±2.18）ml和（15.25±2.73） ml。两组尿失禁和尿道狭窄等并发症发生率差异无统计学意义。

结论

随访6个月，两组均能够有效剜除前列腺且降低PSA，同时改善LUTS，说明对治疗中等体积BPH均安全有效。LP-HoLEP虽然学习曲线较长，但可以减少膀胱冲洗、尿管留置及住院时间。因此，低功率钬激光剜除中等体积前列腺增生具有可行性且可进一步推广应用。

关键词: 前列腺增生, 等离子, 低功率, 钬激光, 前列腺切除术
Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of low-power holmium laser enucleation (LP-HoLEP) and plamakinetic resection of prostate (PKEP) in treatment of patients with median volume of BPH.

Methods

104 patients with median volume BPH (30 ml<V<80 ml) and underwent LP-HoLEP (n=51) or PKEP (n=53) between June 2018 and June 2020 in our hospital were analyzed. All patients were followed up for 6 months. The age, Hb, V1, RUV, IPSS score, Qmax, PSA, time of enucleation, morcellaction, bladder irrigation, indwelling catheter, hospital stay, weigh of excised gland and decrease of postoperative hemoglobin were comparatively analyzed. The increase number of cases of urinary leukocytes before and 7 d, 14 d and 21 d after surgey, and IPSS score, PSA and V2 at 6 months after surgey in two groups were statistically analyzed.

Results

There was no significant difference in preoperative data, included age, Hb, prostate volume, IPSS, Qmax, PSA and RUV between two groups (P>0.05). There was also no significant difference in enucleation and comminution time, weigh of excised gland, and decrease of hemoglobin between the two groups (P>0.05). However, LP-HoLEP was significantly superior to PKEP in terms of bladder irrigation time [(42.63±13.25) min vs (51.67±11.65) min] and indwelling catheter time [(1.80±0.56) d vs (2.23±0.83) d]. It can also reduce slightly hospital stay [(2.90±0.70) d vs (3.58±0.68) d], P<0.05. The increase number of cases urinary leukocytes changed with time before and 7 d, 14 d and 21 days after operation (F=132.842, P<0.05). And there was no significant difference in urinary leukocytosis between the two methods. The results were significantly improved compared with preoperative IPSS, PSA and postoperative prostate volume (P<0.05), but there was no statistical difference in complications include urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection, retrograde ejaculation and urethral stricture and so on during 6 months follow-up.

Conclusion

LP-HoLEP and PKEP can effectively enucleate the prostate and significantly improve the patient's LUTS symptom during 6-month follow-up. Both procedures reduced the patient's IPSS and PSA but showed no significant difference. LP-HoLEP and PKEP are significant effective and safe in moderate BPH. LP-HoLEP group had a slightly shorter indwelling catheter time, hospital stay and less flush fluid volume despite longer learning curve. In conclusion, LP-HoLEP is as well technically feasible, safe and as it can be further promoted.

Key words: BPH, HoLEP, PKEP, Low Power, Resection of prostate
图1 BHP患者入组流程图
图2 两组30~80 ml前列腺体积的BPH患者术后IPSS，PSA，V2比较注：V2指患者术后前列腺体积
表1 两组30~80 ml前列腺体积的BPH患者围手术期一般资料的比较(±s)
组别 例数 年龄(岁) Qmax(ml/s) IPSS(分) RUV(ml) Hb(g/L) PSA(ng/ml) V1(ml)
LP-HoLEP组 51 68.80±5.97 9.14±1.96 21.33±5.28 60.85±23.54 128.90±8.56 3.19±0.91 60.90±10.21
PKEP组 53 67.08±5.41 9.38±1.62 21.93±3.59 63.80±17.05 126.73±9.45 2.91±0.83 63.08±8.17
t值 1.354 -0.213 -0.025 0.149 1.079 1.465 -1.052
P值 0.180 0.832 0.980 0.523 0.284 0.147 0.296
组别 剜除时间(min) 粉碎时间(min) 膀胱冲洗时间(h) 尿管留置(d) 术后住院(d) 切除质量(g) Hb下降值(g/L)
LP-HoLEP组 50.40±10.91 12.00±3.11 42.63±13.25 1.80±0.56 2.90±0.70 45.85±9.02 7.08±2.38
PKEP组 53.05±8.71 12.95±3.17 51.67±11.65 2.23±0.83 3.58±0.68 42.55±8.41 7.35±1.76
t值 -1.20 -1.352 -3.631 -3.584 -4.361 1.576 -0.694
P值 0.234 0.180 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.119 0.490
表2 两组30~80 ml前列腺体积的BPH患者并发症的比较[例(%)]
组别 例数 近期并发症 远期并发症
二次出血 压力尿失禁 膀胱痉挛 逆行射精 尿道狭窄 复发 二次手术 膀胱颈挛缩
LP-HoLEP组 51 5（9.8） 8（15.7） 7（13.7） 6（11.7） 2（4.7） 0 3（5.9） 1（2.0）
PKEP组 53 7（13.2） 6（11.2） 9（16.9） 8（15.1） 1（1.9） 0 2（3.8） 0
χ2值 0.295 0.425 0.212 0.331 0.001 - 0.002 -
P值 0.587 0.514 0.646 0.565 0.973 - 0.965 -
表3 两组30~80 ml前列腺体积的BPH患者尿白细胞升高例数比较[例(%)]
组别 例数 术前 7 d 14 d 21 d
LP-HoLEP组 51 7(13.7) 43(84.3) 13(25.4) 7(13.2)
PKEP组 53 9(17.0) 37(69.8) 10(18.9) 5(9.8)
[1]
Leong JY, Tokarski AT, Roehrborn CG, et al. UroLift and Rezum: minimally invasive surgical therapies for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia[J]. Can J Urol, 2021, 28(S2): 2-5.
[2]
黄阳, 许海波, 邱育, 等. 经尿道等离子电切术与经尿道前列腺电切术对良性前列腺增生病人性功能和生活质量的影响分析[J]. 临床医学杂志, 2018, 26(8): 621-624.
[3]
Xiao KW, Zhou L, He Q, et al. Transurethral endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a diode laser versus bipolar plasmakinetic for benign prostatic obstruction: a meta-analysis[J]. Lasers Med Sci，2020，35(5): 1159-1169.
[4]
Shvero A, Kloniecke E, Capella C, et al. HoLEP techniques – lessons learned[J]. Can J Urol，2021, 28(S2): 11-16.
[5]
Huang SW, Tsai CY, Tseng CS, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of new surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysis[J]. BMJ, 2019, 367: l5919.
[6]
Cornu J-N, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and compliations following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 67(6): 1066-1096.
[7]
Patard M, Roumiguie1S, Sanson J, et al. Endoscopic enucleation for prostate larger than 60 mL: comparison between holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic enucleation[J]. World J Urol, 2021, 39(6): 2011-2018.
[8]
Becker B, Gross AJ, Netsch C, et al. Safety and efficacy using a low-powered holmium laser for enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): 12 month results from a prospective low power HoLEP series[J].World J Urol, 2018, 36(3): 441-447.
[9]
Lerner LB, McVary KT, Barry MJ, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: aua guideline part ii-surgical evaluation and treatment[J]. J Urol, 2021, 206(4): 818-826.
[10]
Zeng XT, Liu T Z, Gong K, et a1. The BPSC: A prospective study investigating the clinical effect of interventional therapy and the risk factors for bladder cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia in Chinese population [J]. J Evid Based Med, 2018, 11(1): 64-67．
[11]
Romero-Otero J, García-Gómez B, García-González L, et a1. Critical analysis of a multicentric experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: outcomes and compliations of 10 years of routine clinical Practice[J]. BJU Int，2020, 126(1): 177-182.
[12]
Habib E, Ayman LM, ElSheemy MS, et al. Holmium laser enucleation vs bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation of a large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Endourol 2020, 34(3): 330-338.
[13]
Scofone CM, Cracco CM. The en-bloc no-touch holmium Laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) technique[J]. World J Urol, 34(8): 1175-1181.
[14]
Elshal AM, Mekkawy R, Laymon M, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment for large-sized benign prostate hyperplasia; is it a realistic endourologic alternative in developing country?[J]. World J Urol, 2016, 34(3): 399-405.
[15]
Hirasawa Y, Kato Y, Fujita K. Transurethral Enucleation with Bipolar for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 2-Year Outcomes and the Learning Curve of a Single Surgeon's Experience of 603 Consecutive Patients[J]. J Endourol, 2017, 31(7): 679-685.
[16]
Ali M, Landeira M, et al. The use of mono- and combination drug therapy in men and women with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the UK: a retrospective observational study[J]. BMC Urol, 2021, 21(1): 119.
[17]
李杰, 程神, 叶朝阳等. 分叶剜除法在双极等离子体前列腺腔内剜除术中的应用[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版)，2010, 4(3): 201-203
[18]
Lin CH, Wu WJ, Li CC, et al. Comparison of different en bloc holmium laser enucleation of the prostate techniques to reduce the rate of postoperative transient urinary incontinence[J]. J Int Med Res, 2021, 49(8): 65-67.
[19]
宋金亮,张斌. 经尿道前列腺等离子电切术治疗合并糖尿病的良性前列腺增生症[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2010, 4(1): 69-70.
[20]
Gu M, Chen YB, Liu C,et al. Comparison of holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic resection of prostate: a randomized trial with 72-Month Follow-Up[J]. J Endourol, 2018, 32(2): 139-143.
[21]
Elshal AM, Nabeeh H, Eldemerdash Y, et al. Prospective assessment of learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia using a multidimensional approach [J]. J Urol, 2017, 197(4): 1099-1107.
[1] 熊风, 林辉煌, 陈晓波. 铥激光在泌尿外科中的临床应用及研究进展[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 533-536.
[2] 韩广玮, 申雪晴, 吴涵潇, 曹炎武, 唐黎明. 前列腺增生并轻度尿道狭窄行去外鞘半导体激光汽化剜除与等离子电切的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 490-494.
[3] 李腾成, 谭益元, 黄群雄, 吴杰英, 肖恒军, 胡成, 李茂胤, 高新, 狄金明. 机器人腹腔镜后入路完全筋膜内根治性前列腺切除术治疗早期前列腺癌[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 452-456.
[4] 李全喜, 唐辉军, 唐友杰, 杨飞. DISCO成像技术在前列腺增生与前列腺癌鉴别诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 332-335.
[5] 方昌华, 杜霖, 陈鑫楠, 王昊, 王文帝, 张成伟, 秦海翔, 邱雪峰, 庄君龙, 徐林峰, 郭宏骞, 张古田. 以累积和分析法研究保留耻骨后间隙机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的学习曲线[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 319-325.
[6] 单兴利, 王栋, 邢念增, 肖泽均, 李亚健. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT对前列腺癌盆腔淋巴结转移诊断价值的研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 214-218.
[7] 谢秋波, 周宇, 宋健, 涂忠, 李想, 汪仁昊, 伍依依, 潘铁军. 全息影像在机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术中保留膀胱颈的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 209-213.
[8] 李国峰, 李显文, 周祥福, 何昊麟, 杜红兵, 宾开云. 单极滚珠电极与等离子行经尿道前列腺剜除术的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 247-251.
[9] 赖良海, 赵伟, 肖云新, 杨伟明, 陈光耀. 1 470 nm激光"平均三分法"剜除术与等离子剜除术治疗前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 252-256.
[10] 金敬苗, 韦巍, 钟羽翔, 麦源, 黄剑华, 赵朋朋, 林富祥, 李旷怡, 徐战平. 侧卧位微创经皮肾镜联合Y形负压吸引鞘治疗中老年铸型结石的研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 144-148.
[11] 李晓山, 刘巍, 魏世平. 双J管-Folys导尿管捆绑复合体在输尿管镜钬激光碎石术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 154-156.
[12] 邹志辉, 张礼刚, 胡永涛, 牛迪, 陈佳, 葛秦涛, 尹水平, 杨诚, 施浩强, 邰胜, 周骏, 郝宗耀, 梁朝朝. 无线智能高清内镜在经尿道双极等离子解剖性前列腺剜除术中的应用初探[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 39-43.
[13] 游猛, 顾志文, 宋生生, 张贺庆, 詹河涓. 等离子电切术与钬激光剜除术治疗体积>80 ml前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 44-49.
[14] 郑军, 许新, 江爽, 俞继卫. 经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗前列腺根治性切除术后并发腹股沟疝疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 557-560.
[15] 张宁, 张梦菲, 邱建新, 高闫尧, 陈育, 高靖榆. 腹腔镜下经尿道等离子电切术联合疝环充填式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟斜疝合并前列腺良性增生[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 441-444.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号