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.
【摘要】 目的 探讨良性前列腺增生症（benign prostatic hyperplasia，BPH）应用经尿道前列腺普通电切镜剜除术（transurethral electro enucleation of the prostate，TUEP）的方法及疗效。 方法 2007年12月－2010年7月，应用TUEP治疗BPH患者201例，并根据前列腺腺体的大小及形状的不同采用不同的剜除方法以提高手术的成功率。 结果 全部患者均顺利完成手术，切除前列腺重量平均38 g，平均手术时间100 min，术后平均留置导尿管时间5~7 d，术后平均住院时间5.5 d。 结论 TUEP是治疗良性前列腺增生症的一种有效方法。【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the therapeutic effect of transurethral enucleation of prostate on benign prostatic hyperplasisa. Methods From December 2007 to July 2010, 201 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent transurethral enucleation. According to the size and shape of the gland, different enucleation ways were used to improve the surgical success rate. Results All of the enucleations were successful. The average weight of the resected prostate was 38 grams, the mean operation duration was 100 minutes, the average days of indwelling catheter was 5-7 days, and the average hospital staying was 5.5 days. Conclusion Transurethral enucleation of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia is effective.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of terazosin, tamsulosin and finasteride for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods We searched the related original studies all over the world, and only included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (CCT). MEDLINE (1966 to Dec. 2004), EMBASE (1984 to Dec. 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004) and four Chinese databases were electronically searched and 10 related journals were handsearched. The studies included in the references of eligible studies were additionally searched. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for eligibility, evaluated the quality and extracted the data from the eligible studies, with confirmation by cross-checking. Divergences of opinion were consulted by a third party. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 4.2 software. Results Twelve original studies involving 2 471 participants met inclusion criteria. Compared with terazosin, tamsulosin could improve international prostatic symptom score, with WMD 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 1.46, P=0.04. There was no statistical difference between terazosin and tamsulosin in improving the average rate of urine flow (WMD 0.23, 95%CI -0.39 to 0.85, P=0.46), the residual urine volume (WMD 0.82, 95%CI -2.92 to 4.57, P=0.67) and in diminishing the volume of prostate (WMD 2.20, 95%CI -3.99 to 8.39, P=0.49). There was no statistical difference between finasteride and tamsulosin in improving the international prostatic symptom score (WMD 0.65, 95%CI -0.45 to 1.75, P=0.25) or the max rate of urine flow (WMD 0.39, 95%CI -0.72 to 1.51, P=0.49). Only two studies compared finasteride with terazosin and had different conclusions. Only one study compared finasteride or terazosin with a combination of these drugs suggested that the combination had higher effective power than finasteride alone but no difference with terazosin alone. Conclusions Although the effectiveness in some aspects is higher in the tamsulosin group, there is not enough evidence to show which one is the best among these three drugs. The combination of finasteride and terazosin does not show more effectiveness than terazosin alone. This review suggests that tamsulosin alone should be used for the treatment of BPH and the combination needs to be identified by better evidence. It is important to improve the quality of original studies.
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.
Objective To evaluate the safety of Rongbisu capsule used for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods A total of 218 patients (average age 63.73±7.50 years old) with phase Ⅰor Ⅱ benign prostatic hyperplasia were treated with oral Rongbisu capsule at a dose of 3 granules twice daily. The therapeutic course was 6 weeks and hepatic function was determined every 2 weeks. Results The median value of ALT in 218 patients rose significantly after the patients took Rongbishu capsule for 6 weeks (P=0.001 7). There were 17 patients whose ALT level rose from normal to abnormal, the incidence was 7.80%. There were 3 patients whose hepatic function was seriously impaired (ALT＞200 IU/L). Conclusions The essential component of Rongbishu capsule is edible tulip which has been recorded in the medical literature as being toxic. Airpotato yam of which the alias is also edible tulip is easily mistaken for edible tulip. Airpotato yam is the tuber of dioscorea bulbifera L. (family dioscoreaceae) which has confirmed hepatotoxcity. Our study result indicates that in order to insure the safety of Chinese crude drug, the origin of Chinese crude drug should be defined in the formulation according to the standard of Chinese drugs preparation. Pharmaceutical enterprises should strictly abide by the standards to identify the origin of Chinese crude drugs when approving the raw materials, especially for species which are poisonous and easily mistaken.
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.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder cancer and prostate (TURBT+TURP) in the treatment of bladder cancer with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP from inception to January 2015, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies investigating the efficacy and safety of TURBT with TURP in the treatment of bladder cancer with BPH. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk bias of included studies, and then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results3 A total of 3 RCTs (n=137) and 10 retrospective cohort studies (n=998) were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the simultaneous resection group and the control group in the overall recurrence rate (RCT:OR=0.55, 95% CI:0.24 to 1.24, P=0.15; retrospective cohort study:OR=0.78, 95% CI:0.60 to 1.01, P=0.06), postoperative recurrence rate in the prostatic fossa/urethra (RCT:OR=1.40, 95% CI:0.28 to 7.60, P=0.68; retrospective cohort study:OR=1.36, 95% CI:0.49 to 3.74, P=0.55), progression rate (OR=0.93, 95% CI:0.53 to 1.61, P=0.79) and overall perioperative complication rate (RCT:OR=0.35, 95% CI:0.08 to 1.55, P=0.17; retrospective cohort study:OR=0.1.75, 95% CI:0.44 to 6.98, P=0.43). ConclusionCompared with only TURBT or sequential TURBT and TURP, simultaneous TURBT and TURP do not increase the overall recurrence rate, postoperative recurrence rate in the prostatic fossa/urethra, progression rate and overall postoperative complication rate. However, due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, larger sample size and higher quality RCTs are needed to verify the above conclusion.