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, Qmax, 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.
Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate. a propensity score analysis / 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; Cindolo, L.; De Nunzio, C.; Marchioni, M.; Greco, F.; Destefanis, P.; Frea, B.; Bergamaschi, F.; Ricciardulli, S.; Ferrari, G.; Fasolis, G.; Varvello, F.; Palmieri, F.; Voce, S.; Divan, C.; Malossini, G.; Oriti, Rita; Tuccio, A.; Ruggera, L.; Tubaro, A.; Chiodini, P.; Dadone, C.; De Rienzo, G.; Ditonno, P.; Campobasso, D.; Mirone, V.; Frattini, A.; Schips, L.. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY. - ISSN 0724-4983. - 36:1(2018), pp. 91-97. [10.1007/s00345-017-2106-5]
Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate. a propensity score analysis
De Nunzio, Cosimo;Tubaro, Andrea;De Nunzio, C.;Tubaro, A.;
2018
Abstract
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, Qmax, 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.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Cindolo_StandardVsAnatomical_2017.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
656.79 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
656.79 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
Cindolo_StandardVsAnatomical_2018.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
639.39 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
639.39 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.