Evaluation of bipolar Transurethral Enucleation and Resection of the Prostate in terms of efficiency and patient satisfaction compared to retropubic open prostatectomy in prostates larger than 80 cc. A prospective randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of bipolar Transurethral Enucleation Resection of the Prostate (TUERP) and simple retropubic prostatectomy in patients with prostate volumes larger than 80 cc. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study included all patients amenable to surgeries for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) with prostate size over 80 cc at a tertiary care hospital between January 2020 to February 2022. Bipolar TUERP and Retropubic open prostatectomy techniques were compared regarding patients' demographics, intraoperative parameters, outcomes, and peri-operative complications. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in our study and randomly assigned to bipolar TUERP (Group 1 = 45 patients) and retropubic open prostatectomy (Group 2 = 45 patients). The TUERP group demonstrated significantly lower operative time (77 ± 11 minutes vs. 99 ± 14 minutes, p < 0.001), hemoglobin drop (median = 1.1 vs. 2.5, p < 0.001), and resected tissue weight (71 ± 6.6 cc vs. 84.5 ± 10.6 cc, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, the TUERP group demonstrated significantly lower catheter time (median = 2 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001) and less hospital stay. IPSS, Qmax, and patient satisfaction were better in the TUERP group within six months of surgery. We reported 90-day complications after TUERP in 13.3% of patients compared to 17.8% after retropubic prostatectomy, with a statistically insignificant difference. Urethral stricture predominated after TUERP, while blood transfusion dominated in retropubic prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found that TUERP had equivalent efficacy and safety to open retropubic prostatectomy for patients with BPH and prostate volumes > 80 ml.

[Influence of mandibulotomy approaches on oral function following radical resection of tongue carcinoma].

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the influences of postoperative oral function in patients with median or paramedian mandibulotomy during the radical resection of tongue carcinoma and to provide evidence for the choice of osteotomy location for mandibulotomy. METHODS: The clinical data of 126 patients who underwent combined radical neck dissection with mandibulectomy and glossectomy followed by simultaneous reconstruction were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the position of mandibulotomy: median mandibulotomy group (median group, n=60) and paramedian mandibulotomy group (paramedian group, n=66). The fourth edition of the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UW-QOL) was used to compare the differences in oral functions, such as swallowing, mastication, and speech, between the two groups during regular follow-up. SPSS 24.0 software package was used for statistical analysis, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Six months after the operation, no significant differences in swallowing, mastication, and speech functions were found between the median and paramedian groups. However, the swallowing and speech functions in the paramedian group were better than those in the median group 1 year after the operation (P<0.05), whereas no statistical difference in mastication function was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the postoperative oral function results showed that paramedian mandibulotomy was a better surgical approach than median mandibulotomy. Paramedian mandibulotomy is worth prioritizing in the radical resection of tongue carcinoma.