Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Cindolo, Luca
• De Nunzio, Cosimo
• Greco, Francesco
• Destefanis, Paolo
• Bergamaschi, Franco
• Ferrari, Giovanni
• Fasolis, Giuseppe
• Palmieri, Fabiano
• Divan, Claudio
• Oriti, Rino
• Ruggera, Lorenzo
• Tubaro, Andrea
• Dadone, Claudio
• De Rienzo, Gaetano
• Frattini, Antonio
• Mirone, Vincenzo
• Schips, Luigi

Titel

Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate: a propensity score analysis

Ist Teil von

• World journal of urology, 2018, Vol.36 (1), p.91-97

Ort / Verlag

Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Erscheinungsjahr

2018

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Purpose To compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP). Methods Within a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q max , and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured at baseline and during the follow-up. PGI-I score as well as early and late complications were recorded at follow-up visits. Log-binomial and multivariable proportional odds regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of aPVP vs. sPVP on PGI-I as well as on early and late complication rates, before and after adjustment for propensity score. Results 813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p  < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p  < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used ( p  = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP ( p  = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients’ satisfaction (OR 1.19, p  = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p  = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p  = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p  = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP. Conclusion Our results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient’s satisfaction.