Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To compare transurethral resection in saline (TURIS), Greenlight laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate (GL.PVEP), and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), for controlling lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to assess non-inferiority of 3-year re-treatment rates.
Patients And Methods: Eligible patients with BPH (prostate size 80-150 mL) were randomly assigned to one of the intervention groups. Non-inferiority of re-treatment rate was evaluated using a one-sided test at 5% level of significance.
Results: At the time of analysis, 60 GL.PVEP, 60 HoLEP and 62 TURIS procedures were included. Perioperative parameters were comparable between groups; however, the operative time was longer in GL.PVEP vs HoLEP and TURIS, at a mean (SD) of 92 (32) vs 73 (30) and 83 (28) min (P = 0.005); and was less effective with a mean (SD) removal of 1.2 (0.4) vs 1.7 (0.7) and 1.4 (0.6) g/min (P < 0.001), respectively. Perioperative complications and need for auxiliary procedures were similar in the three groups; however, there was a significantly higher rate of capsular perforation in TURIS group (five, 8%) compared to one (1.6%) in the GL.PVEP group and none in the HoLEP group (P = 0.01). There was a significantly longer hospital stay, catheter-time and higher rate of blood transfusion in the TURIS group. There was significant but comparable improvements in the International Prostate Symptom Score in three groups at different follow-up points. At 3 years, re-treatment for recurrent bladder outlet obstruction was required more after GL.PVEP and TURIS. More re-do surgeries for recurrent obstructing prostate adenoma was reported after GL.PVEP (four, 6.7%) and TURIS (six, 9.7%) than for HoLEP (none) (P = 0.04).
Conclusion: The perioperative outcomes of GL.PVEP and HoLEP surpassed that of TURIS for the treatment of large prostates, but with a significantly prolonged operative time with GL.PVEP. The three techniques achieve good functional outcomes; however, 3-year re-treatment rates following TURIS and GL.PVEP were inferior to HoLEP.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15161 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!