目的:探討微創治療BPH并發膀胱結石的方法。方法:應用氣壓彈道碎石術聯合TURP治療BPH并發膀胱結石26例。結果:24例一次成功,1例一期碎石,二期行TURP;1例中轉開放手術。結論:氣壓彈道碎石術聯合TURP治療BPH并發膀胱結石創傷小,恢復快,安全高效。
Objective To assess the efficacy of finasteride in treating perioperative bleeding in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBase (1984 to 2004), CBM (1980 to 2005), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005) and relevant journals to identify cl inical trials involving finasteride in patients undergoing TURP. We also checked the references in the reports of each included trial. The qual ity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to the methods recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration, and the qual ity of non-RCTs was assessed based on the methods recommended by Jiang-ping Liu, Stroup and Hailey. Two reviewers extracted data independently and data analyses were conducted with The Cochrane Collaboration’ s RevMan 4.2. Result We included 4 RCTs and 1 non-RCT. The qual ity of 3 RCTs was graded C and the other one was graded B. The quality of the non-RCT was relatively high. Meta-analyses showed that with comparable age, international prostate symptom score, prostate specific antigen, preoperative volume of prostate and excision volume between the two groups (Pgt;0.05), the perioperative bleeding volume (WMD –85.44, 95%CI –117.31 to –53.58), the bleeding volume per gram of resected prostate tissue (WMD –3.5, 95%CI –6.34 to –0.58) and hemoglobin reduction (WMD –1.61, 95%CI –1.96 to –1.26) of the finasteride group were significantly smaller than those of the control group. Conclusion The evidence currently available indicates that preoperative use of finasteride may reduce bleeding in patients undergoing TURP.
ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1 470 nm laser vaporization vs. transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) about the efficacy and safety of 1 470 nm laser vaporization vs. TURP for BPH from inception to October 22nd, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 6 RCTs and 4 non-RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: 1 470 nm laser vaporization was superior to TURP in reducing intraoperative bleeding (MD=?103.87, 95%CI ?148.08 to ?59.65, P<0.000 01), hospital stay (MD=?3.82, 95%CI ?4.35 to ?3.28, P<0.000 01), postoperative indwelling catheter time (MD=?2.24, 95%CI ?3.45 to ?1.02, P=0.000 3), postoperative hemoglobin (MD=?1.63, 95%CI ?3.14 to ?0.12, P=0.03) and rate of secondary hemorrhage (OR=0.13, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.48, P=0.002). There were no significant differences in operative time, bladder irrigation time, transient urinary incontinence and urethral stricture, IPSS Score and Qmax at 3 months after operation between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that 1 470 nm laser vaporization is superior to TURP in reducing intraoperative bleeding and secondary hemorrhage. It may be more suitable for prostate surgery in anticoagulant or coagulative dysfunction patients. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of transurethral procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MethodWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2014), Sciverse, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to December 2014 to collect SRs/MAs of transurethral procedure about BPH. Two reviewers independently screened literature and assessed the methodological and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs by AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. ResultsA total of 33 SRs/MAs were included. The results of qualitative analysis showed that:the main methodological weakness of included SRs/MAs included the lack of protocol, disappropriate conclusion formulation, the lack of publication bias assessment, and the lack of stating the conflict of interest. The average score of AMSTAR scale was 6.27±2.14. There were 11 items in PRISMA checklist with coincidence rate over 80%, 8 items between 50% to 80%, and 8 items less than 50%. ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of SR/MA of transurethral procedure for BHP is low, and that may decrease the reliability and value of results from SRs/MAs in the field. Future SRs/MAs should strictly follow the related reporting guidelines in order to improve the methodological and reporting quality, so as to provide more reliable evidence for clinical decision.
ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic prostatectomy (TUPKP) versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of TUPKP and HoLEP for treatment of BPH from inception to January 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, the meta-analyses were performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 9 RCTs involving 784 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that, in efficacy outcomes, TUPKP was superior to HoLEP in Qmax at 48 months, and was inferior to HoLEP in PVR at 3 months, Qmax in 60 and 72 months, and IIEF-5 at 48 and 72 months. No significant association was found between two groups in Qmax from 1 to 36 months, IPSS from 1 to 72 months, prostate volume, PVR from 6 months, IIEF-5 from 1 to 24 months, QoL at 1 to 36 months, and resected prostate weight. As for safety, TUPKP was superior to HoLEP in operation time, while inferior to HoLEP in blood loss during procedure, hospital stay, catheterization period, bladder irrigation period, irrigation fluid, massive hemorrhage and hematuresis. No significant association was observed between two groups in serum sodium decrease, hemoglobin decrease, PSA, postoperative urine retention, blood transfusion, cystospasm, temporary incontinence, urinary tract infection, TURS, epididymitis, temporary difficulty in urination, urinary tract irritation syndrome, reoperation, retrograde ejaculation, urinary incontinence, ED and urethrostenosis.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the efficacy and safety of TUPKP and HoLEP for treatment of BPH are similar. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
ObjectivesThe present network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential efficacy and safety of various surgical approaches in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with enlarged prostate.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov and CNKI databases were electronically searched to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias and the ADDIS 1.16.8 software was used to conduct meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 23 studies involving 2 849 patients with 5 approaches including open prostatectomy (OP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), plasmakinetic/bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (PK/BPEP), transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP), and laparoscopic prostatectomy (LSP) were included. HoLEP, PK/BPEP and OP were superior to the other methods in improving the objective indicators and subjective feelings of patients during both short and medium-term follow-up. However, compared with OP, HoLEP and PK/BPEP were observed to result in a significantly lower hemoglobin level (MD=1.65, 95%CI 0.35 to 4.41; MD=2.62, 95%CI 0.64 to 2.90), longer postoperative irrigation time (MD=4.67, 95%CI 1.29 to 10.66; MD=2.67, 95%CI 1.32 to 6.63), as well as indwelling catheter after operation (MD=1.64, 95%CI 0.48 to 4.15; MD=2.52, 95%CI 0.60 to 3.78). In terms of short-term complications, PK/BPEP (RR=0.45, 95%CI 0.13 to 1.29) was found to be significantly lower than that of OP.ConclusionsHoLEP and PK/BPEP can be probably used as a superior treatment option for large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia because of its better curative effect, higher safety and quick postoperative recovery.
【摘要】 目的 探討采用不同方法經尿道前列腺等離子雙極電切術（plasmakinetic resection of prostate，PKRP）的方法及療效。 方法 2008年7月-2009年12月，應用不同方法行PKRP治療156例前列腺增生。患者年齡59~87歲，平均74歲。病程20 d~18年。前列腺重量22~100 g，平均38 g。采用單純順行電切法治療38例，部分剜除分割切除法治療76例，完全剜除法治療42例。 結果 156例手術均獲成功，手術時間平均90 min。獲得前列腺組織12~87 g，平均35 g。術后留置導尿管平均5.5 d，住院時間平均6.5 d。術后組織病理學診斷為良性前列腺增生152例，前列腺癌4例。拔除尿管后均能自主排尿，部分患者術后有尿道刺激癥狀；術后1個月內出現尿道外口狹窄3例，經尿道擴張治愈。隨訪時間1~12個月，平均6個月。短期尿失禁3例，時間分別為1周、1個月及3個月；無長期尿失禁。術后3個月國際前列腺癥狀評分（IPSS）癥狀評分平均減少24分，生活質量評分平均減少3分。 結論 PKRP安全、有效、并發癥少，可針對患者情況采用不同切割方法，效果更佳。【Abstract】 Objective To explore the effects and methods of transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate(PKRP). Methods A total of 156 patients with prostatic hyperplasia were treated with various methods of transurethral PKRP from July 2008 to December 2009. Patient’s age ranged from 59 to 87 years,74 years on average. The disease duration was 20 days to 18 years.Method one:anterograde resection in 38 patients; method two:partition retrograde enucleation in 76 patients; method three:completely retrograde enucleation in 42 patients. Results All of the swgeries were successful. The mean duration of the operation was 90 minutes.The collected prostatic specimens were 12-87 g,35 g on average. The mean catheter remaining dwation was 5.5 days.The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.5 days. Conclusions PKRP is safe and effective. It is effective with various methods of transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate.
目的:探討經尿道前列腺電切術(TURP)治療高危良性前列腺增生癥(BPH)的術中、術后常見并發癥的原因、預防及治療,提高手術安全性和有效性。方法: 回顧性分析62例高齡合并心肺疾患的前列腺增生癥患者行經尿道前列腺電切術(TURP)的臨床資料。結果: 62例排尿困難癥狀均改善,其中1例出現暫時性尿失禁,2月后好轉,尿路感染7例,消炎治療后好轉,5例出現肉眼血尿,做對癥處理后血尿消失,無輸血病例,無經尿道電切綜合征(TURS)發生。結論:采用TURP是良性前列腺增生癥安全有效的外科治療方法,療效滿意,并發癥少,安全性高,住院時間短,費用低。
【摘要】 目的 探討經尿道超脈沖等離子體腔內逆行剜除汽化切除術治療良性前列腺增生的有效性和安全性。 方法 2008年4月－2009年4月，應用Gyrus超脈沖等離子體行經尿道前列腺腔內逆行剜除汽化切除術124例，前列腺重量為（62.3±21.7） g。術中首先用電切鏡鞘、電切環鈍銳性相結合將前列腺增生腺體沿外科包膜逆行剝離、剜除，同時斷血供，然后推至膀胱頸處后切除。統計手術時間、術中出血量及收集到的前列腺組織質量，術后留置尿管時間、住院時間、手術后前列腺特異性抗原（prostatic specific antigen，PSA）、殘余尿量（post voiding residual volume，PVR）、最大尿流率（Qmax）、國際前列腺癥狀評分（international prostatic symptom scores，IPSS）及生活質量評分（quality of life，QOL）等指標的變化。 結果 124例手術順利完成。手術時間（48.1±19.4） min，腺體組織質量（57.6±19.6） g，平均失血量（86.2±20.7） mL，僅1例需要輸血，出血量和手術時間隨前列腺體積和重量的增加而相應增加和延長。術后留置尿管時間（3.1±1.6） d，住院時間（5.8±1.4） d。隨訪6～18個月，所有患者術后1、6個月Qmax、PVR、IPSS、QOL均較術前得到改善，與術前比較差異均有統計學意義（Plt;0.05）。術后6個月血清PSA降至（0.90±0.26） ng/mL，與術前比較差異有統計學意義（Plt;0.05）。繼發尿道外口狹窄3例，經尿道擴張治療后恢復排尿通暢；繼發尿失禁2例，經保守治療分別于術后1～6個月恢復；無永久性尿失禁、再次手術止血患者，無手術死亡者，未發生經尿道前列腺電切綜合征。 結論 經尿道超脈沖等離子體腔內逆行剜除汽化切除術治療良性前列腺增生安全有效，值得臨床推廣使用。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of superpulse plasmakinetic body in transurethral intracavitary retrograde enucleation and vaporization resection of the prostate (TUEVRP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods Between April 2008 and April 2009, Gyrus TUEVRP was performed on 124 patients with obstructive BPH whose mean prostatic weight was (62.3±21.7) g. The hyperplasia prostate glands were retrogradely dissected and enucleated along surgical capsule to the bladder neck by sharp and blunt dissection combination of the resectoscope tip or loop. Simultaneously, the blood supply of the gland was clamped. The changes of such indexes as operating time, perioperative blood loss, collected prostatic specimen weight, postoperative catheterization time, hospitalization time, prostatic specific antigen (PSA), post voiding residual volume (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), international prostatic symptom score (IPSS), and quality of life (QOL) were assessed. Results All surgeries were successfully carried out with an average operation time of (48.1±19.4) minutes ranged from 25 to 175 minutes. The mean collected prostatic specimen weight was (57.6±19.6) g ranged from 20.2 to 125.7 g. The blood loss was ranged from 45 to 350 ml, averaging at (86.2±20.7) mL during the operation. Blood transfusion was needed in only one case. Blood loss and operation time were increased and prolonged in accordance with the increase of prostatic volume and weight. The postoperative catheterization time was ranged from 2 to 5 days, averaging at 3.1±1.6. The mean hospitalization time was (5.8±1.4) days ranged from 5 to 8 days. All patients were followed up for 6 to 18 months. Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QOL-score six months after operation were significantly improved compared with those before operation (Plt;0.05). There were three cases of external urethral stricture, and they were treated with urethral dilatation successfully. Two cases of urinary incontinence recovered 1 and 6 months later, respectively, by traditional treatment. There were no cases of permanent urinary incontinence, reoperation for hemostasis, operative death, or transurethral resection syndrome. Conclusion TUEVRP is safe and clinically efficacious in the treatment of BPH, and is worthy of clinical promotion.