Abstract
Objectives: To compare urodynamic findings after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related bladder outlet obstruction. Methods: From January to October 2002, 100 consecutive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms were randomized to surgical treatment with either HoLEP (group 1, n = 52) or TURP (group 2, n = 48). All patients were preoperatively assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score and quality-of-life question, total serum prostate-specific antigen measurement, transrectal ultrasonography, and complete urodynamic study. The operative time, catheterization time, and overall hospital stay were also recorded for both groups. All patients were assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using a complete urodynamic evaluation. Results: All patients were obstructed preoperatively (Schäfer grade greater than 2). Both groups were comparable in terms of age, total serum prostate-specific antigen level, International Prostate Symptom Score, and urodynamic results. At 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, no statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of detrussor pressure at maximal urinary flow rate, Schäfer grade (linear passive urethral resistance relation), maximal urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, and quality-of-life score. In the HoLEP group, the catheterization time and hospital stay were significantly shorter. Transitory lower urinary tract symptoms after 3 months of follow-up and dysuria were more frequent in the HoLEP group than in the TURP group, although at 12 months of follow-up, the results were comparable. Conclusions: Both HoLEP and TURP were equally effective in relieving bladder outlet obstruction. Although associated with greater early self-resolving irritative symptoms, HoLEP can guarantee a shorter catheterization time and hospital stay with longer operative times, proposing itself as an attractive alternative to standard TURP.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1193-1198 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Urology |
| Volume | 67 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2006 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Urology
Cite this
Urodynamics after TURP and HoLEP in urodynamically obstructed patients : Are there any differences at 1 year of follow-up? / Rigatti, Lorenzo; Naspro, Richard; Salonia, Andrea; Centemero, Antonella; Ghezzi, Massimo; Guazzoni, Giorgio; Briganti, Alberto; Rigatti, Patrizio; Montorsi, Francesco.
In: Urology, Vol. 67, No. 6, 06.2006, p. 1193-1198.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Urodynamics after TURP and HoLEP in urodynamically obstructed patients
T2 - Are there any differences at 1 year of follow-up?
AU - Rigatti, Lorenzo
AU - Naspro, Richard
AU - Salonia, Andrea
AU - Centemero, Antonella
AU - Ghezzi, Massimo
AU - Guazzoni, Giorgio
AU - Briganti, Alberto
AU - Rigatti, Patrizio
AU - Montorsi, Francesco
PY - 2006/6
Y1 - 2006/6
N2 - Objectives: To compare urodynamic findings after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related bladder outlet obstruction. Methods: From January to October 2002, 100 consecutive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms were randomized to surgical treatment with either HoLEP (group 1, n = 52) or TURP (group 2, n = 48). All patients were preoperatively assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score and quality-of-life question, total serum prostate-specific antigen measurement, transrectal ultrasonography, and complete urodynamic study. The operative time, catheterization time, and overall hospital stay were also recorded for both groups. All patients were assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using a complete urodynamic evaluation. Results: All patients were obstructed preoperatively (Schäfer grade greater than 2). Both groups were comparable in terms of age, total serum prostate-specific antigen level, International Prostate Symptom Score, and urodynamic results. At 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, no statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of detrussor pressure at maximal urinary flow rate, Schäfer grade (linear passive urethral resistance relation), maximal urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, and quality-of-life score. In the HoLEP group, the catheterization time and hospital stay were significantly shorter. Transitory lower urinary tract symptoms after 3 months of follow-up and dysuria were more frequent in the HoLEP group than in the TURP group, although at 12 months of follow-up, the results were comparable. Conclusions: Both HoLEP and TURP were equally effective in relieving bladder outlet obstruction. Although associated with greater early self-resolving irritative symptoms, HoLEP can guarantee a shorter catheterization time and hospital stay with longer operative times, proposing itself as an attractive alternative to standard TURP.
AB - Objectives: To compare urodynamic findings after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related bladder outlet obstruction. Methods: From January to October 2002, 100 consecutive patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms were randomized to surgical treatment with either HoLEP (group 1, n = 52) or TURP (group 2, n = 48). All patients were preoperatively assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score and quality-of-life question, total serum prostate-specific antigen measurement, transrectal ultrasonography, and complete urodynamic study. The operative time, catheterization time, and overall hospital stay were also recorded for both groups. All patients were assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using a complete urodynamic evaluation. Results: All patients were obstructed preoperatively (Schäfer grade greater than 2). Both groups were comparable in terms of age, total serum prostate-specific antigen level, International Prostate Symptom Score, and urodynamic results. At 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, no statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of detrussor pressure at maximal urinary flow rate, Schäfer grade (linear passive urethral resistance relation), maximal urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, and quality-of-life score. In the HoLEP group, the catheterization time and hospital stay were significantly shorter. Transitory lower urinary tract symptoms after 3 months of follow-up and dysuria were more frequent in the HoLEP group than in the TURP group, although at 12 months of follow-up, the results were comparable. Conclusions: Both HoLEP and TURP were equally effective in relieving bladder outlet obstruction. Although associated with greater early self-resolving irritative symptoms, HoLEP can guarantee a shorter catheterization time and hospital stay with longer operative times, proposing itself as an attractive alternative to standard TURP.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33744511040&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33744511040&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.036
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.036
M3 - Article
C2 - 16750253
AN - SCOPUS:33744511040
VL - 67
SP - 1193
EP - 1198
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
SN - 0090-4295
IS - 6
ER -