经尿道电切术和钬激光剜除治疗前列腺增生的荟萃分析被引量：17

Meta-analysis of HoLEP and TURP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

在线阅读下载PDF

导出

摘要目的:采用荟萃分析方法比较经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)和经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)所致膀胱出口梗阻(BOO)的疗效和安全性。方法:通过计算机检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library万方数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库(截至2018年12月)中相关文献,按纳入及排除标准,收集比较HoLEP和TURP治疗BPH的临床随机对照试验(RCT),进行文献筛查、质量评价和数据提取,并用RevMan5.3软件进行统计分析。结果:经筛选后共10篇文献纳入分析,其中HoLEP组521例,TURP组517例。与TURP相比,HoLEP的优势在于留置尿管时间短(MD=-22.94,95%CI:-25.22^-20.66)、住院时间短(MD=-20.95,95%CI:-22.45^-19.44)、血红蛋白丢失量少(MD=-0.26,95%CI:-0.41^-0.12)、输血率低(RR=0.16,0.05~0.50)、尿道狭窄发生率低(RR=0.48,0.25~0.91),而且远期剩余尿量少(MD=-4.63,95%CI:6.82^-2.44)、国际前列腺症状评分低(MD=-1.22,95%CI:-1.85^-0.58)、最大尿流率高(MD=0.92,95%CI:0.64~1.20);HoLEP的劣势在于手术时间长(MD=21.42,95%CI:19.70~23.15);术后尿失禁方面差异无统计学意义。结论:在外科治疗BPH所致BOO方面,HoLEP较TURP住院时间短、远期效果好、安全性高,有望成为BPH微创治疗的金标准。 Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate(HoLEP)and transurethral resection of prostate(TURP)in treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia(BPH)due to bladder outlet obstruction(BOO)using meta-analysis methods.Methods:We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data from PubMed,Web of Science,Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(as of December 2018),and collected randomized controlled trials(RCT)of HoLEP versus TURP for BPH.Literature screening,quality evaluation and data extraction were performed and statistical analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.Results:After screening,a total of 10 articles were included in the analysis,including 521 patients in the HoLEP group and 517 patients in the TURP group.Compared with TURP,HoLEP had the advantages of shorter catheter indwelling time(MD=-22.94,95%CI-25.22,-20.66),shorter hospital stay(MD=-20.95,95%CI-22.45,-19.44),less hemoglobin loss(MD=-0.26,95%CI-0.41,-0.12),lower transfusion rate(RR=0.16,0.05,0.50),lower incidence of urethral stricture(RR=0.48,0.25,0.91),lower long-term residual urine output(PVR)(MD=-4.63,95%CI-6.82,-2.44),lower international prostate symptom score(IPSS)(MD=-1.22,95%CI-1.85,-0.58),and higher maximum urinary flow rate(Qmax)(MD=0.92,95%CI 0.64,1.20).The disadvantage of HoLEP was the longer operation time(MD=21.42,95%CI 19.70,23.15).There was no significant difference in postoperative urinary incontinence between two groups.Conclusions:In the surgical treatment of BOO caused by BPH,HoLEP has shorter hospital stay,better long-term effect and higher safety than TURP,and it is expected to replace TURP as the gold standard for BPH surgical treatment.

作者杨春光唐焜凌青郭小林 YANG Chunguang;TANG Kun;LING Qing;GUO Xiaolin(Department of Urology,Tongji Hospital Affiliated Tongji Medical College of Huazhong Universi?ty of Science and Technology,Wuhan 430030,China)

机构地区华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院泌尿外科

出处《微创泌尿外科杂志》 2020年第1期50-55,共6页 Journal of Minimally Invasive Urology

基金国家自然科学基金(81702989).

关键词经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术经尿道前列腺电切术良性前列腺增生 Meta分析 transurethral holmium laser enucleation transurethral resection of the prostate benign prostatic hyperplasia meta-analysis

分类号 R697.32 [医药卫生—泌尿科学]

作者简介通信作者:郭小林,guoxiaolin0488@sina.com

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献1

1郭强,肖毅,李建文,张建东,张雁钢.HoLEP与TUPKP治疗BPH的安全性和疗效的meta分析[J].中华男科学杂志,2016,22(10):914-922. 被引量：14

二级参考文献17

1Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, et al. EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenie male lower uri- nary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol, 2013, 64(1): 118-140.
2TUBARO A, CARTER S, HIND A, et al. A prospective study of the safety and efficacy of suprapubie transvesieal prostateetomy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol, 2001, 166 (1) : 172-176.
3AUA guideline on management of benign prostatic hyperplasia( 2003 ) . Chapter 1 : Diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol, 2003,170( 2,Part 1) : 530-547.
4Tang Y, Li J, Pu C, et al. Bipolar transurethral resection versus monopolar transurethral resection for benign prostatic hypertro- phy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol, 2014, 28(9) : 1107-1114.
5Hoekstra R J, Van Meliek HH, Kok ET, et al. A 10-year follow- up after transurethral resection of the prostate, contact laser pros- tatectomy and eleetrovaporization in men with benign prostatic hy- perplasisa: Long-term results of a randonfized controlled trial . BJU Int, 2010, 106(6) : 822-826.
6Chen Y B, Chen Q, Wang Z, et al. A prospective, randonfized clinical trial comparing plasmakinetic resection of the prostate with holmium laser enueleation of the prostate based on a 2-year followup. J Urol, 2013, 189(1): 217-222.
7Fayad A $, Elsheikh M G, Zakaria T, et al. Holmium laser enu- eleation of the prostate versus bipolar resection of the prostate: A prospective randomized study. " Pros and cons". Urology, 2015, 86(5) : 1037-1041.
8Mamoulakis C, Ubbink DT, de la Rosette JL. Bipolar versus mo- nopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: A systematic re- view and recta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol, 2009, 56(5) : 798-809.
9Li S, Kwong JS, Zeng XT, et al. Plasmakinetie resection tech- nology for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia : Evidence fl'om a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 2015, 5: 12002.
10Du C, Jin X, Bai F, el al. Hohnium laser enucleation of the prostate: The safety, efficacy, and learning experience in China. J Endourol, 2008, 22(5): 1031-1036.