MP02-12 INTRAVESICAL PROSTATIC PROTRUSION IS NOT THE SAME IN ITS SHAPE: EVALUATION BY PREOPERATIVE CYSTOSCOPY AND OUTCOME IN HOLEP

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology I1 Apr 2017MP02-12 INTRAVESICAL PROSTATIC PROTRUSION IS NOT THE SAME IN ITS SHAPE: EVALUATION BY PREOPERATIVE CYSTOSCOPY AND OUTCOME IN HOLEP Hiromitsu Negoro, Ktsuhiro Ito, Atsuro Sawada, Shusuke Akamatsu, Ryoichi Saito, Takashi Kobayashi, Naoki Terada, Toshinari Yamasaki, Takahiro Inoue, Tomomi Kamba, and Osamu Ogawa Hiromitsu NegoroHiromitsu Negoro More articles by this author , Ktsuhiro ItoKtsuhiro Ito More articles by this author , Atsuro SawadaAtsuro Sawada More articles by this author , Shusuke AkamatsuShusuke Akamatsu More articles by this author , Ryoichi SaitoRyoichi Saito More articles by this author , Takashi KobayashiTakashi Kobayashi More articles by this author , Naoki TeradaNaoki Terada More articles by this author , Toshinari YamasakiToshinari Yamasaki More articles by this author , Takahiro InoueTakahiro Inoue More articles by this author , Tomomi KambaTomomi Kamba More articles by this author , and Osamu OgawaOsamu Ogawa More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.108AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) has been known as a predictor of efficacy not only for medical treatment such as alpha 1 blocker and dutasteride, but also for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). However, the IPP is considered not the same in its shape because middle lobe and/or lateral lobes can protrude into bladder. Here, we evaluated the shape of IPP by cystoscopy and analyzed the outcome. METHODS We reviewed charts of patients who had undergone HoLEP in Kyoto University Hospital from January 2006 to June 2016. Among 222 cases, 157 cases were evaluable for IPSS, uroflowmetry, IPP and its shape by preoperative flexible cystoscopy in outpatient clinic. IPP was classified into 5 groups: A, no protrusion; B, middle lobe only; C, lateral lobe only; D, bilateral lobe; E, B+C or B+D. Paired match analysis with similar IPP and other parameters was performed between the group with middle lobe protrusion (B+E, n=33) and the one without it (C+D, n=33). RESULTS Table 1 shows the number of patients, age, score of total IPSS, QOL score, Qmax and IPP in the five groups. The group A (no protrusion) had a significantly higher Qmax than other groups. Groups with middle lobe protrusion (B or E) had a better tendency in changes in total IPSS score and Qmax. Paired match analysis shown in Table 2 demonstrated that the group with middle lobe protrusion had a significantly greater improvement of total IPSS score than the one without it (-16.6 vs. -10.8. p<0.01). Among them with less than 16 mm of IPP, all of patients with middle lobe protrusion improved IPSS, while only 76.5% (13/ 16) of patients without it were improved. CONCLUSIONS Patients with middle lobe protrusion had a greater improvement of IPSS in HoLEP than those having similar length of IPP without middle lobe protrusion. IPP should be clinically divided into two groups at least. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e15 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Hiromitsu Negoro More articles by this author Ktsuhiro Ito More articles by this author Atsuro Sawada More articles by this author Shusuke Akamatsu More articles by this author Ryoichi Saito More articles by this author Takashi Kobayashi More articles by this author Naoki Terada More articles by this author Toshinari Yamasaki More articles by this author Takahiro Inoue More articles by this author Tomomi Kamba More articles by this author Osamu Ogawa More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...