Актуальные хирургические методы лечения гиперплазии предстательной железы

Доброкачественная гиперплазия предстательной железы (ДГПЖ) является одним из наиболее распространенных состояний, поражающих мужчин среднего возраста. До 15–25% мужчин в возрасте от 50 до 65 лет имеют симптомы нижних мочевыводящих путей (СНМП), которые обычно связаны с доброкачественным разрастанием ткани предстательной железы. Хотя СНМП часто ассоциируются с ДГПЖ, СНМП также могут быть вызваны различными не связанными синдромами, такими как сердечная недостаточность, инфекции мочевыводящих путей и сахарный диабет. В данной статье проведен обзор публикаций по теме современных и актуальных методов лечения гиперплазии простаты, а также проведен анализ их эффективности и безопасности. Появление большого количества хирургических методов лечения гиперплазии простаты предопределило поиск наиболее эффективных и безопасных из них. Данные проведенного нами проспективного, сравнительного исследования на кафедре урологии МГМСУ имени А.И. Евдокимова на базе ГКБ имени С.И. Спасокукоцкого позволили резюмировать, что все представленные в данной статье методы хирургического лечения ДГПЖ продемонстрировали свою эффективность, но, при этом, только методики тулиевой энуклеации и ТУРП позволяют провести операцию эндоскопически, сохраняя целостность кожных покровов, безопасно и радикально.   

1. Mahon J., McVary K. New alternative treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Minimally Invasive Urology: An Essential Clinical Guide to Endourology, Laparoscopy, LESS and Robotics, 2nd edn, Best SL, Nakada SY (Eds): Springer, 2020.

2. Foster H., Dahm P., Kohler T. Surgical Management of Lower Uri­nary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA Guideline Amendment 2019. J Urol, 2019, № 202, pp. 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000319

3. Wei J., Calhoun E., Jacobsen S. Urologic diseases in America project: benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol, 2005, № 173, pp. 1256–1261. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000155709.37840.fe

4. Welliver C., Feinstein L., Ward J. Trends in Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Associated with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, 2004 to 2013: the Urologic Diseases in America Project. J Urol, 2020, № 203, pp. 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000499

5. McVary K., Roehrborn C., Avins A.L. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol, 2011, № 185, pр. 1793–1803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.074

6. Jacobsen S., Jacobson D., Girman C. Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol, 1997, № 158, pp. 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64508-7

7. Lightner D., Wymer K., Sanchez J., Kavoussi L. Best Practice State­ment on Urologic Procedures and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis. J Urol, 2020, № 203, pp. 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000509

8. Forrest J., Clemens J., Finamore P. AUA Best Practice Statement for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing urolog­ic surgery. J Urol, 2009, № 181, pp. 1170–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.12.027

9. Michalski W., Poniatowska G., Jonska-Gmyrek J. Venous thrombo­prophylaxis in urological cancer surgery. Med Oncol, 2019, № 37, pp. 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-019-1331-8

10. Borth C., Nickel J. Management of spontaneous prostate related bleeding. AUA: Update Series, 2006

11. Optimizing Outcomes in Urologic Surgery. American Urological As­sociation: White Paper, 2018.

12. Fwu C., Eggers P., Kirkali Z. Change in sexual function in men with lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia associ­ated with long-term treatment with doxazosin, finasteride and combined therapy. J Urol., 2014, № 191, pp. 1828–1834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.014

13. American Urological Association (AUA). Guideline. Benign Pros­tatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia/ Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, 2019.

14. Issa M. Technological advances in transurethral resection of the prostate: bipolar versus monopolar TURP. J Endourol, 2008, № 22, pp. 1589–1595. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0192

15. Omar M., Lam T., Alexander C. Systematic review and meta-anal­ysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar trans­urethral resection of the prostate (TURP). BJU Int, 2014, № 113, pp. 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12281

16. Cornu J., Ahyai S., Bachmann A. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Functional Outcomes and Complications Following Transurethral Procedures for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Result­ing from Benign Prostatic Obstruction: An Update. Eur Urol., 2015, № 67, pp. 1066–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017

17. Nuhoğlu B., Balci M., Aydin M. The role of bipolar transurethral vaporization in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Int., 2011, № 87, pp. 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329797

18. Geavlete B., Georgescu D., Multescu R. Bipolar plasma vaporization vs monopolar and bipolar TURP-A prospective, randomized, long-term comparison. Urology, 2011, № 78, pp. 930–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.072

19. Lourenco T., Shaw M., Fraser C. The clinical effectiveness of trans­urethral incision of the prostate: a systematic review of randomised con­trolled trials. World J Urol, 2010, № 28, pp. 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0496-8

20. Reich O., Gratzke C., Stief C. Techniques and long-term results of surgical procedures for BPH. Eur Urol, 2006, № 49, pp. 970–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.072

21. Lee D., Rieken M., Halpern J. Laser Vaporization of the Prostate With the 180-W XPS-Greenlight Laser in Patients with Ongoing Platelet Aggregation Inhibition and Oral Anticoagulation. Urology, 2016, № 91, pp. 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.021

22. Brassetti A., Nunzio C., Delongchamps N. Green light vaporization of the prostate: is it an adult technique? Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2017, № 69, pp. 109–118. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02791-0

23. Bachmann A., Tubaro A., Barber N. 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 6-month safety and ef­ficacy results of a European Multicentre Randomised Trial--the GO­LIATH study. Eur Urol., 2014, № 65, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.040

24. Thomas J., Tubaro A., Barber N. A Multicenter Randomized Non­inferiority Trial Comparing GreenLight-XPS Laser Vaporization of the Prostate and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction: Two-yr Outcomes of the GOLIATH Study. Eur Urol., 2016, № 69, pp. 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euru­ro.2015.07.054

25. Bachmann A., Tubaro A., Barber N. A European multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing 180 W GreenLight XPS laser vaporization and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 12-month results of the GO­LIATH study. J Urol., 2015, № 193, 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.001

26. Kuntz R.M., Lehrich K., Ahyai S.A. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol., 2008, № 53, pp. 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.036

27. Kuntz R.M, Ahyai S., Lehrich K., Fayad A. Transurethral hol­mium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocau­tery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 pa­tients. J Urol., 2004, № 172, pp. 1012–1016. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000136218.11998.9e

28. Foster H.E., Barry M.J., Dahm P. Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA Guideline. J Urol., 2018, № 200, pp. 612–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.048

29. Zhong J., Feng Z., Peng Y., Liang H. A Systematic Review and Me­ta-analysis of Efficacy and Safety Following Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate and Transurethral Resection of Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hy­perplasia. Urology, 2019, № 131, pp. 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urol­ogy.2019.03.034

30. Hashim H., Worthington J., Abrams P. Thulium laser transure­thral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2020, 396, pp. 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30537-7

31. Gilling P., Anderson P., Tan A. Aquablation of the Prostate for Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 1-Year Results. J Urol., 2017, № 197, pp. 1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.056.

32. Gilling P.J., Barber N., Bidair M. Randomized Controlled Trial of Aquablation versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Pros­tatic Hyperplasia: One-year Outcomes. Urology, 2019, № 125, pp. 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.002

33. Gilling P., Barber N., Bidair M. WATER: A Double-Blind, Ran­domized, Controlled Trial of Aquablation vs Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. J Urol., 2018, № 199, pp. 1252– 1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.065

34. Hwang E.C., Jung J.H., Borofsky M. Aquablation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign pros­tatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev., 2019, № 2, рр. CD013143. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013143.pub2

35. Hoffman R.M., Monga M., Elliott S.P. Microwave thermotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012, рр. CD004135. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004135.pub3

36. Schelin S., Geertsen U., Walter S. Feedback microwave thermo­therapy versus TURP/prostate enucleation surgery in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and persistent urinary retention: a prospective, ran­domized, controlled, multicenter study. Urology, 2006, № 68, pp. 795–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.020

37. Wagrell L., Schelin S., Nordling J. Feedback microwave thermo­therapy versus TURP for clinical BPH--a randomized controlled multi­center study. Urology, 2002, № 60, pp. 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01740-5

38. Mattiasson A., Wagrell L., Schelin S. Five-year follow-up of feed­back microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH: a prospec­tive randomized multicenter study. Urology, 2007, № 69, pp. 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1115

39. Zhang B., Wu G., Chen C. Combination of channel-TURP and ILC versus standard TURP or ILC for elderly with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized prospective trial. Urol Int., 2011, № 87, pp. 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1159/000331500

40. Geavlete B., Bulai C., Ene C. Bipolar vaporization, resection, and enucleation versus open prostatectomy: optimal treatment alternatives in large prostate cases? J Endourol., 2015, № 29, pp. 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0493

41. Simforoosh N., Abdi H., Kashi A. Open prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate, where are we standing in the new era? A randomized controlled trial. Urol J, 2010, № 7, pp. 262–269.

42. Xie J., Tan Y., Wang F.L. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic adenomec­tomy (Madigan) versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia greater than 80 ml: complications and func­tional outcomes after 3-year follow-up. J Endourol., 2014, № 28, pp. 353– 359. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0374