No bladder irrigation versus continuous bladder irrigation after HoLEP: a propensity score matching analysis

Abstract

Purpose In this study, the feasibility of a no bladder irrigation strategy after transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was studied. Methods From August 2021 to December 2021, the clinical data of 62 patients who received no bladder irrigation after HoLEP (Group A) were studied. The control group contained the clinical data of 150 patients in the same therapy group (from January 2021 to July 2021) who received continuous bladder irrigation after HoLEP (Group B). The baseline was consistent after using the propensity score matching (PSM) method, and the differences between groups were compared. The pre- and postoperative complications, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine (PVR) of the two groups were compared, accompanied by a follow-up evaluation of surgical effects. Results 47 pairs of patients were successfully matched by PSM. There was no statistically significant difference in the intraoperative conditions and the incidence of early postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). Before and one month after the surgery, significant differences were also found in the IPSS, QOL, Qmax, and PVR of both groups (P < 0.05). Within one month after the surgery, no statistically significant difference was found in IPSS, QOL, Qmax, PVR, or the incidence of early postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion For appropriately selected patients according to the exclusion criteria, the no bladder irrigation strategy after HoLEP for BPH is safe and effective.

Clinical efficacy and short-term outcome of combining flexible cystoscopy with percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex renal stone management

“…Urologic stones are a significant global health concern, with a prevalence ranging from 7% to 13% in North America, 5% to 9% in Europe, and 1% to 5% in Asia, as reported in epidemiological studies [1,2]. These differences highlight the influence of lifestyle, dietary habits, and genetic predisposition across different populations.…”