Аннотация:
Objective: To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. Materials and Methods: Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP. Results: ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P >.05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate—1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P <.001) without significant dif
Enikeev D. V. Dmitrij Viktorovich 1982-
Gly'bochko P. V. Petr Vitalyevich 1964-
Rapoport L. M. Leonid Moiseevich 1956-
Gahan J.
Gazimiev M. A. Magomed-Salakh Alkhazurovich 1967-
Spivak L. G. Leonid Grigoryevich 1974-
Enikeev M. E`. Mikhail E`likovich 1974-
Taratkin M. S. Mark Sergeevich 1993-
Еникеев Д. В. Дмитрий Викторович 1982-
Глыбочко П. В. Петр Витальевич 1964-
Рапопорт Л. М. Леонид Моисеевич 1956-
Гахан Й.
Газимиев М. А. Магомед-Салах Алхазурович 1967-
Спивак Л. Г. Леонид Григорьевич 1974-
Еникеев М. Э. Михаил Эликович 1974-
Тараткин М. С. Марк Сергеевич 1993-
A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach—Initial Results
A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring...
Текст визуальный непосредственный
Urology
Elsevier Science Publisher B.V.
Vol.121 P. 51-57
2018
Статья
aged Article clinical effectiveness comparative effectiveness controlled study endoscopic surgery enucleation human International Prostate Symptom Score learning curve major clinical study male outcome assessment priority journal prostate volume quality of life randomized controlled trial surgical technique transurethral resection education learning curve middle aged operation duration organ size pathology patient selection perioperative period postoperative complication procedures prostate prostate hypertrophy Russian Federation transurethral resection ureteroscopy urology Aged Humans Learning Curve Male Middle Aged Operative Time Organ Size Outcome Assessment (Health Care) Patient Selection Perioperative Care Postoperative Complications Prostate Prostatic Hyperplasia Russia Transurethral Resection of Prostate Ureteroscopy Urology
Objective: To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. Materials and Methods: Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP. Results: ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P >.05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate—1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P <.001) without significant dif