Aim： To explore the feasibility and safety of greenlight photoselective vaporization of the prostate （PVP） on high-risk patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplas...Aim： To explore the feasibility and safety of greenlight photoselective vaporization of the prostate （PVP） on high-risk patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） and to evaluate their clinical and voiding outcome. Methods： A total of 85 high-risk patients with obstructive BPH underwent PVP with an 80 W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser, which was delivered through a side-deflecting fiber with a 23 Fr continuous flow cystoscope. Operative time, blood loss, indwelling catheterzation, international prostate symptom score （IPSS）, quality of life score （QoL）, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine volume and short-term complication rates were evaluated for all patients. Results： All patients got through the perioperative period safely. The chief advantages of PVP were： short operative time （25.6 ± 7.6 min）, little bleeding loss （56.8 ± 14.3 mL） and short indwelling catheterization （1.6 ± 0.8 d）. The IPSS and QoL decreased from （29.6 ± 5.4） and （5.4 ± 0.6） to （9.5 ± 2.6） and （1.3 ± 0.6）, respectively. The vast majority of patients were satisfied with voiding outcome. The mean maximal urinary flow rate increased to 17.8 mL/s and postvoid residual urine volume decreased to 55.6 mL. These results are significantly different from preoperative data （P 〈 0.05）. No patient required blood transfusion or fluid absorption. There were few complications and very high patient satisfaction after operation. Conclusion： PVP has a short operative time and high tolerance, and is safe, effective and minimally invasive for high-risk patients, therefore it might be considered as a good alternative treatment for high-risk patients with obstructive urinary symptoms as a result of BPH.展开更多
文摘Aim： To explore the feasibility and safety of greenlight photoselective vaporization of the prostate （PVP） on high-risk patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） and to evaluate their clinical and voiding outcome. Methods： A total of 85 high-risk patients with obstructive BPH underwent PVP with an 80 W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser, which was delivered through a side-deflecting fiber with a 23 Fr continuous flow cystoscope. Operative time, blood loss, indwelling catheterzation, international prostate symptom score （IPSS）, quality of life score （QoL）, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine volume and short-term complication rates were evaluated for all patients. Results： All patients got through the perioperative period safely. The chief advantages of PVP were： short operative time （25.6 ± 7.6 min）, little bleeding loss （56.8 ± 14.3 mL） and short indwelling catheterization （1.6 ± 0.8 d）. The IPSS and QoL decreased from （29.6 ± 5.4） and （5.4 ± 0.6） to （9.5 ± 2.6） and （1.3 ± 0.6）, respectively. The vast majority of patients were satisfied with voiding outcome. The mean maximal urinary flow rate increased to 17.8 mL/s and postvoid residual urine volume decreased to 55.6 mL. These results are significantly different from preoperative data （P 〈 0.05）. No patient required blood transfusion or fluid absorption. There were few complications and very high patient satisfaction after operation. Conclusion： PVP has a short operative time and high tolerance, and is safe, effective and minimally invasive for high-risk patients, therefore it might be considered as a good alternative treatment for high-risk patients with obstructive urinary symptoms as a result of BPH.
