Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (TPKEP) and transurethral resection of the plasma (TURP) in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) on the basis of bipolar plasma kinetic technology. Methods Eighty BPH patients who met the included criteria were assigned to two groups according to block balanced randomization, of which, 40 received TPKEP and the others received PKRP. We conducted statistical analysis after recording the clinical outcomes including international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), maximum flow (Qmax), post void residual urine volume (PVR), rates of prostate coated perforation, blood loss in the operation, duration of operation, time of bladder irrigation, duration of indwelling catheter, post-operative adverse effects, etc. Results The two groups were consistent at baseline before operation. The results of the analysis of clinical outcomes showed that, the TPKEP group was superior to the TURP group in prostate coated perforation (2 cases vs. 8 cases), hemoglobin in flushing fluid (index of blood loss, 10.95±5.02 g vs. 15.8±5.86 g), duration of operation (45.13±11.22 min vs. 53.33±8.69 min), time of bladder irrigation (12.58±2.77 h vs. 22.1±2.33 h), duration of indwelling catheter (65.13±10.67 h vs. 84.5±5.67 h), post-operative irritation sign of the bladder and urethra (5 cases vs. 12 cases), and the event of indwelling catheter after removal (0 cases vs. 4 cases), with significant differences; however, the TPKEP group was higher than the TURP group in the incidence of transient uracratia (10 cases vs. 3 cases), with a significant difference. The results of a 6-month follow-up showed that, no significant difference was found between the two groups in IPSS (2.78±1.03 vs. 2.40±1.13), QOL (1.28±0.45 vs. 1.45±0.51), Qmax (21.10±2.68 vs. 20.58±2.57), and PVR (2.82±2.90 vs. 2.18±2.27), respectively (Pgt;0.05). Long-term uracratia, urethrostenosis and secondary bleeding were not observed after operation in both groups. Conclusions TPKEP and TURP were alike in the short-term effectiveness of operation. TPKEP is safer than the TURP, which is regarded as a fairly ideal method for treating symptomatic BPH. However, the long-term effectiveness of TPKEP is yet to be further proved by large-scale randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up.
Objective To evaluate the correlation between benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and metabolic syndrome (MS). Methods Total 666 elderly male patients admitted to West China Hospital for routine physical examination in May, 2010 were included in this study. The related laboratory tests of BPH and MS were taken. The correlation among BPH, lower urinary tract Symptoms (LUTS), prostate volume (PV), MS and its component diseases were analyzed. Results Hypertension was an important risk factor for BPH (OR=1.309, 95%CI 1.033 to 1.661), low HDL-C hyperlipidemia was a risk factor for IPSS scored over 7 points (OR=1.573, 95%CI 0.330 to 0.997), and the score of PV was positively correlated to obesity, hypertension, low HDL-C hyperlipidemia and MS (all Plt;0.05). Conclusion For the patient with BPH, MS and its component diseases mainly exert their effects on PV changes rather than LUTS.
Objective To access the efficacy and safety of Holmium laser prostatectomy technique compared to TURP. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1996 to 2004), EMBASE (1984 to 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), CNKI, VIP, CMCC and CBMdisc; and handsearched the relevant Chinese journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included. The quality of trials was evaluated and meta-analysis was performed. Non-randomized controlled trials were also included to evaluate the safety and efficacy. Results We found 4 randomized controlled trials. A total of 480 participants were in the trials ranging from 60 to 200. There was no statistical difference between the two techniques at 12 or 48 months follow-up in terms of quality of life (QOL) improvement（WMD=-0.19, 95%CI -0.81 to 0.44, Z=0.59, P=0.56; WMD=-0.30, 95%CI -0.90 to 0.30, Z=0.98, P=0.33); Qmax improvement（WMD=1.63 ml/s, 95%CI -0.32 to 3.59, Z=1.64, P=0.10; WMD=3.80 ml/s, 95%CI -1.36 to 8.96,Z=1.44, P=0.15); I-PSS or AUA (WMD=-0.06, 95%CI -1.01 to 0.89, Z=0.12, P=0.91; WMD=-1.40, 95%CI -3.91 to 1.11, Z=1.09, P=0.27) and the urethral stricture complication rate (RR=0.75, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.60, Z=0.74, P=0.46). However hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Holmium laser prostatectomy groups (total WMD=-24.89, 95%CI -28.56 to -21.21, Z=13.27, P＜0.000 01). We can not draw consistent conclusions in terms of blood loss according to the present data. One study indicated Holmium laser prostatectomy technique was more cost-effective than TURP. Conclusions In short period Holmium laser prostatectomy is as safe as TURP in terms of hospital stay, urethral stricture and blood loss complication. This new technique is as effiective as TURP in terms of I-PSS (AUA), Qmax and QOL. More RCTs and more long term follow-up is necessary.
目的:探讨经尿道双环双极等离子切除治疗前列腺增生症的有效性及安全性。方法:采用美国顺康双环双极等离子电切系统(ACMI vista CTR)治疗BPH268例;随访6个月。结果:手术时间20~140 min,平均手术时间(60.88±29.95) min;输血6例;无电切综合征发生;术后留置尿管3~5天,平均(3.91±0.84);术后平均住院时间(7.05±2.10)天。最大尿流率(Qmax)由术前的(5.89±3.59) mL/s上升至术后6个月的(18.98±4.67) mL/s (Plt;0.01);前列腺症状评分(IPSS),术前为(22.04±7.02)分,术后6个月降至(6.82±3.81)分(Plt;0.01)。结论:双环双极等离子切除治疗前列腺增生疗效好,手术安全,并发症少。
Objective To determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce the risk of postoperative bacteriuria in men undergoing transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) who have sterile preoperative urine. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing antibiotic prophylaxis and placebo/blank controls for men undergoing TURP with preoperative sterile urine. The search strategy was established according to the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group search strategy. Data was extracted by two reviewers using the designed extraction form. RevMan were used for data management and analysis. Results Fifty three relevant trials were searched, of which 27 trials were included and 26 were excluded. Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly decreased the rate of post-TURP bacteriuria.The pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval were 0.36 (0.28, 0.46). Conclusions Prophylactic antibiotics could significantly decrease the incidence of post-TURP bacteriuria. Further comparative RCTs and cost-effective should be performed analysis to establish the optimal antibiotic regimes for the benefit of patients undergoing TURP.
摘要:目的:探讨经尿道前列腺等离子切除术(PKRP)治疗前列腺增生症(BPH)的疗效及安全性。方法:回顾分析采用PKRP治疗的BPH患者,收集患者临床资料,随访12个月,并对手术前后患者国际前列腺症状评分、最大尿流率、生活质量评分进行比较。结果:2006年8月至2008年8月PKRP手术治疗BPH患者共238例,手术时间30～159 min,平均70 min,切除腺体25～127 g,平均54 g。无电切综合征。术后及1年后最大尿流率、国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分三项指标较术前明显改善(Plt;0.05)。结论:PKRP是治疗BPH安全有效的治疗方式。Abstract: Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic energy transurethral resection of the prostate (PKRP) for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). Methods: The data of patients with BPH treated with PKRP were retrospectively analyzed and the International Prostate Symptoms Scales (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax) and Quality of Life (QOL) of patients with 12month followup were compared before and afteroperation and postoperation. Results: A total of 238 patients with BPH were enrolled from June 2006 to June 2008. The duration of the procedure was 70. 3 min (ranged from 30 min to 159 min) and the weight of dissected tissue was 54 g (ranged from 25 g to 127 g). No transurethral resection syndrome occurred. IPSS, Qmax and QOL were improved obviously after operation (Plt;0.05). Conclusion: PKRP is effective and safe.
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.