Comparative Observation of Thulium Laser Resection of the Prostate-Tangerine Technique and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia of Various Sizes
Y Tian,G H Luo,X S Yang,S J Xia,Z L Sun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2019.06.008
2019-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To compare the efficiency and safety of thulium laser resection of the prostate-tangerine technique (TmLRP-TT) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) of various sizes. Methods: Clinical data of 249 BPH patients received TmLRP-TT or TURP were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into small prostate group [prostate volume (PV)<40 ml], medium prostate group (40 ml≤PV<80 ml) and large prostate group (PV ≥ 80 ml) based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) results. Age, PV, Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International prostate symptom score (IPSS), Quality of life (QoL), maximum of flow rate (Q(max)) and post-void residual urine (PVR) of patients received TmLRP-TT or TURP in each group were analyzed, as well as the perioperative data including operation time, hemoglobin and serum sodium level, transfusion, postoperative length of indwelling catheter and postoperative hospital stay. Furthermore, the postoperative complication rates of patients received the two operative methods in each group up to follow-up of 6 months were compared. Results: As for baseline indicators, there were no significant differences regarding age, prostate volume, PSA, IPSS, QoL, Qmax and PVR of patients received TmLRP-TT or TURP in each group (all P>0.05). In the small prostate group, there were no significant differences with operation time, hemoglobin and serum sodium level, transfusion, postoperative length of indwelling catheter and postoperative hospital stay received TmLRP-TT or TURP (all P>0.05). For the medium prostate group, patients received TmLRP-TT underwent longer operation time [(67.4±15.1) vs (57.5±11.5) min, P<0.001], but shorter length of indwelling catheter [(1.5±0.6) vs (3.1±0.9) d, P<0.001] and postoperative hospital stay [(3.5±0.9) vs (5.6±1.0) d, P<0.001], and there were no significant differences regarding transfusion rate (3/73 vs 1/78, P=0.280), hemoglobin [(9.8±9.0) vs (12.2±9.6) g/L, P=0.107] and serum sodium decrease [(2.07±3.65) vs (2.97±3.35) mmol/L, P=0.373]. In the large prostate group, patients received TmLRP-TT also underwent longer operation time [(86.5±14.3) vs (76.7±14.6) min, P=0.022], but less hemoglobin [(11.3±13.8) vs (23.3±15.0) g/L, P=0.006] and serum sodium decrease [(2.41±2.67) vs (4.00±6.22) mmol/L, P=0.042], lower transfusion rate (5/27 vs 0/24, P=0.026), and shorter length of indwelling catheter [(1.8±0.7) vs (4.3±1.5) d, P<0.001] as well as postoperative hospital stay [(3.7±1.1) vs (6.1±1.7) d, P<0.001]. Less overall complications were encountered in the medium (38/73 vs 24/78, P=0.008) and large (26/27 vs 10/24, P<0.001) prostate group who received TmLRP-TT, which was not seen in the small prostate group (P=0.589). Conclusions: TmLRP-TT and TURP are similarly efficient for the treatment of BPH of various sizes. For BPH patients with medium and large prostate, TmLRP-TT demonstrated significant advantages in reducing the overall complications, although the operation time was slightly longer.