MP27-02 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF PROSTATE (HOLEP) IN PATIENTS WITH UNDERLYING NEUROLOGIC DISEASE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology II1 Apr 2017MP27-02 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF PROSTATE (HOLEP) IN PATIENTS WITH UNDERLYING NEUROLOGIC DISEASE Myong Kim, Myung-Soo Choo, and Tai Young Ahn Myong KimMyong Kim More articles by this author , Myung-Soo ChooMyung-Soo Choo More articles by this author , and Tai Young AhnTai Young Ahn More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.794AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Neurologic disease can cause the neurogenic bladder which can compromise the treatment outcome of HoLEP in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Moreover, anticoagulants are frequently administered in those patients. We compared the efficacy and safety outcomes of HoLEP in BPH patients with or without neurologic disease. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the medical records, and preoperative urodynamic study (UDS) results of BPH patients who underwent HoLEP between June 2009 and December 2015. RESULTS Of the 317 patients who received the HoLEP, 26 (8.2%) patients had underlying neurologic diseases. Neurologic disease group was more frequently administered anticoagulants than non-neurologic group (69.2 vs. 18.6%; p <0.001). However, neurologic disease group demonstrated similar patient characteristics and pre-operative urologic findings with non-neurologic disease group as shown in the Table. Two groups demonstrated similar operation time (non-neurologic disease group vs. neurologic disease group; 116.2 vs. 107.8 min, p=0.291), transfusion rate (0.3 vs. 0.0%, p=0.765), hospital stay (6.1 vs. 5.6 days, p=0.245), catheter duration (3.3 vs. 3.5 days, p=0.593), re-catheterization rate (5.2 vs. 0.0%, p=0.236). At median follow-up of 6 months, two groups demonstrated similar outcome parameters such as Qmax (19.6 vs. 16.6 mL/sec, p=0.088), PVR (27.9 vs. 35.2 mL, p=0.467), IPSS-emptying (3.1 vs. 3.6, p=0.645), IPSS-storage (4.3 vs. 3.3, p=0.219), and IPSS-QoL (1.6 vs. 2.0, p=0.470). Rates of complications such as incontinence (6.7 vs. 9.1%, p=0.671), urinary tract infection (0.8 vs. 0.0%, p=0.667), urethral stricture (1.7 vs. 4.5%, p=0.347) were not also different between two groups. CONCLUSIONS Efficacy and safety outcomes of HoLEP in patients with underlying neurologic diseases did not compromise compared to those of patient without neurologic diseases. HoLEP can be a good treatment option for BPH patients with underlying neurologic disease. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e328 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Myong Kim More articles by this author Myung-Soo Choo More articles by this author Tai Young Ahn More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...