Clinical practice guideline for transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia (2021 Edition).

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline "2018 Standard Edition". However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons' surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy; the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons' skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.

[Thulium laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate and risk factors for postoperative urethral stricture].

OBJECTIVE: To compare thulium laser vaporization of the prostate (TLVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) analyze the risk factors for postoperative urethral stricture. METHODS: From June 2015 to June 2016, 210 BPH patients in our hospital underwent TURP (n = 126) or TLVP (n = 84). We followed up the patients for 6 months, compared the effects of the two surgical strategies and analyzed the risk factors for postoperative urethral stricture by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared with TURP, TLVP achieved significantly shorter time of operation (ï¼»78.6 ± 27.5ï¼½ vs ï¼»53.2 ± 21.6ï¼½ min, P <0.01), postoperative bladder irrigation (ï¼»31.5 ± 2.9ï¼½ vs ï¼»26.1 ± 3.7ï¼½ h, P <0.01), urethral catheterization (ï¼»5.3 ± 1.7ï¼½ vs ï¼»3.7 ± 1.5ï¼½ d, P <0.01) and postoperative hospitalization (ï¼»7.9 ± 2.1ï¼½ vs ï¼»5.5 ± 1.4ï¼½ d, P <0.01) as well as lower urinary leukocyte count at 6 months after surgery (ï¼»32.1 ± 12.6ï¼½ vs ï¼»24.9 ± 11.7ï¼½ /µl, P <0.01) and incidence rate of postoperative complications (11.9% ï¼»15/126ï¼½ vs 3.6% ï¼»3/84ï¼½, P <0.05), particularly that of urethral stricture (7.9% ï¼»10/126ï¼½ vs 1.2% ï¼»1/84ï¼½, P <0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the preoperative urinary leukocyte count, postoperative urethral catheterization time, and surgical method were independent risk factors for postoperative urethral stricture. CONCLUSIONS: TLVP, in comparison with TURP, has the advantages of definite effect, fast recovery, high safety and low incidence of postoperative urethral stricture. The main risk factors for postoperative urethral stricture include preoperative urinary tract infection, postoperative urethral catheterization time and surgical method.