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.
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.
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 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.
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。
ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsRandomized controlled trials of HoLEP versus PKEP in the treatment of BPH published between January 2000 and March 2021 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP database, and Wanfang database. Operative duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss, average duration of urinary catheterization, average duration of bladder irrigation, average length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were used as safety evaluation indicators. Postoperative International Prostatic Symptomatic Score (IPSS), postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postoperative quality of life (QoL), and postvoid residual (PVR) were used as effective evaluation indicators.ResultsA total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, with a total of 1 478 patients (744 in the HoLEP group and 734 in the PKEP group). The results of the meta-analysis showed that the intraoperative blood loss in the HoLEP group was less than that in the PKEP group [weighted mean difference (WMD)=?25.95 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) (?31.65, 20.25) mL, P=0.025], the average duration of urinary catheterization [WMD=?10.35 h, 95%CI (?18.25, ?2.45) h, P=0.042], average duration of bladder irrigation [WMD=?10.28 h, 95%CI (?17.52, ?3.04) h, P=0.038], and average length of hospital stay [WMD=?1.24 d, 95%CI (?1.85, ?0.62) d, P=0.033] in the HoLEP group were shorter than those in the PKEP group, and the incidence of postoperative complications [risk ratio=0.70, 95%CI (0.56, 0.87), P=0.047] and 6-month postoperative Qmax [WMD=?0.89 m/s, 95%CI (?1.74, ?0.05) m/s, P=0.037] in the HoLEP group were lower than those in the PKEP group. However, there was no significant difference in the operative duration, 3-month postoperative IPSS, 3-month postoperative Qmax, 3-month postoperative QoL, 3-month postoperative PVR, 6-month postoperative IPSS, 6-month postoperative QoL, or 6-month postoperative PVR between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsIn the treatment of BPH, the effectiveness of HoLEP does not differ from that of PKEP, but HoLEP is safer. The conclusions of this study need to be verified in more precisely designed and larger sample-sized multi-center randomized controlled trials.
摘要:目的:探討經尿道前列腺等離子切除術(PKRP)治療前列腺增生癥(BPH)的療效及安全性。方法:回顧分析采用PKRP治療的BPH患者,收集患者臨床資料,隨訪12個月,并對手術前后患者國際前列腺癥狀評分、最大尿流率、生活質量評分進行比較。結果:2006年8月至2008年8月PKRP手術治療BPH患者共238例,手術時間30～159 min,平均70 min,切除腺體25～127 g,平均54 g。無電切綜合征。術后及1年后最大尿流率、國際前列腺癥狀評分、生活質量評分三項指標較術前明顯改善(Plt;0.05)。結論:PKRP是治療BPH安全有效的治療方式。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.