A comparative analysis of clinical efficacy of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate-pre-transection urethral mucosa at the apex of prostate and traditional three lobe enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia / 中华泌尿外科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate-pre-transection urethral mucosa at the apex of prostate and traditional three lobe enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.Methods:The data of 270 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who were underwent ThuLEP-PAM or ThuLEP in our hospital from May 2020 to September 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the operation methods, the patients were divided into two groups ThuLEP-PAM group (120 cases) and ThuLEP group (150 cases). There was no significant difference comparing the age [(69.8±7.7) years vs. (71.4±8.0) years], prostate volume [55.5(41.0, 71.0)ml vs. 58.5(45.0, 80.3)ml], the serum PSA [3.0(1.8, 4.6) ng/ml vs. 3.3(2.1, 5.5)ng/ml], international prostate symptom scores (IPSS) [22(17, 28) vs. 22(17, 27)], the quality of life score (QOL)[5(4, 6) vs. 5(4, 6)], the maximum urinary flow rate (Q max)[5.6(3.5, 7.3)ml/s vs. 5.5(4.0, 7.1)ml/s], the residual urine volume [ 31(0, 81)ml vs. 31(0, 102)ml] between the ThuLEP-PAM group and the ThuLEP group. No significant difference was found between the two groups( P>0.05). In the ThuLEP-PAM group, the external sphincter ring was located firstly, and urethral mucosa at the apex of prostate was circumferentially incised at 5 mm proximal of the sphincter ring by laser. Then the urethral mucosa was incised at the left sulcus beside the verumontanum and the prostate surgical capsule gap was exposed. After the middle lobe was removed, the left and right lobes were removed along the urethral mucosa pre-incision line at the prostatic apex. The ThuLEP group was enucleated by traditional three lobes enucleation. Perioperative indicators and postoperative complications during short-term follow-up were compared between the two groups. Results:All patients successfully completed the operation and the symptoms of the lower urinary tract were significantly improved. Comparison the perioperative factors between ThuLEP-PAM group and ThuLEP group included the following operative time 90(70, 103)min vs. 83(61, 102)min; enucleated tissue weight 27.0(19.3, 36.5)g vs. 27.0(19.0, 39.0)g; decrease of the hemoglobin 9.9(7.4, 12.4)g/L vs. 9.5(7.1, 12.7)g/L; catheterization time 3.5(3.0, 4.0)d vs. 3.5(3.0, 5.0)d; hospital stay 6.0(5.0, 6.0)d vs. 5.0(4.0, 6.0)d. NO significant difference in these parameters was found between the two groups( P>0.05). There also was no significant difference in PSA[1.1(0.8, 1.5) ng/ml vs. 1.0(0.8, 1.6) ng/ml], IPSS score [5(4, 6) min vs. 5(4, 6)min], QOL score [2(1, 3) vs. 2(1, 3)], Q max [20.9(17.5, 22.5) ml/s vs. 20.4(17.8, 22.7) ml/s] and PVR [0 ml vs. 0(0, 6)ml] between the two groups ( P>0.05) after more than 3 months of follow-up. The incidence of incontinence for ThuLEP-PAM(2 cases)were lower than that for ThuLEP(11 cases)( P=0.031), but there was no significant between the two groups in other complications such as blood transfusion, haematuria, post-voidalurinary retention and urethral stricture. Conclusions:ThuLEP-PAM and ThuLEP have similar effect on the improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia, both of which have good efficacy and high safety. The biggest advantage of ThuLEP-PAM over ThuLEP is that it reduces the incidence of early postoperative stress urinary incontinence.