经尿道钬激光剜除术与经尿道等离子体剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生的Meta分析-现代医学

经尿道钬激光剜除术与经尿道等离子体剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生的Meta分析

单位：1. 成都363医院, 四川成都 610000;
2. 华西医院, 四川成都 610000

分类号：R697.3

出版年·卷·期（页码）：2020·48·第九期（1143-1149）

摘要：

目的：系统评价经尿道钬激光剜除术（HoLEP）与经尿道等离子体剜除术（TUPKEP）治疗良性前列腺增生的有效性和安全性。方法：检索PubMed、EMBase、Web of Science、万方数据资源系统、中国知网（CNKI）数据库及维普中文期刊数据库，截止时间2019年7月2日，获取HoLEP与TUPKEP治疗良性前列腺增生的比较研究文献，观察指标包括国际前列腺评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QoL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）、围术期结局指标以及并发症发生率，采用ReviewManager 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果：共纳入11篇文献，其中1篇文献为非随机对照、10篇文献为随机对照。共纳入患者980例，HoLEP 491例，TUPKEP 489例。Meta分析结果显示，HoLEP与TUPKEP治疗良性前列腺增生在IPSS评分[MD=0.13，95% CI（-0.08~0.34），P=0.21]、QoL评分[MD=-0.07，95% CI（-0.11~0.02），P=0.003]、Qmax[MD=-0.04，95% CI（-0.30~0.23），P=0.79]方面差异均无统计学意义；安全性方面，TUPKEP手术时间短于HoLEP，但术中出血量、住院时间、膀胱冲洗时间均多于或长于HoLEP；在并发症发生率[OR=0.75，95% CI（0.41~1.37），P=0.35]方面，两者差异无统计学意义。结论：HoLEP与TUPKEP治疗良性前列腺增生具有相似的IPSS分、QoL及Qmax，并且在并发症发生率方面两者也无明显差异。在临床中需要结合患者实际情况选择最佳的手术方式。

Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect and safetyof holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP)and transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (TUPKEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Wanfang Data Resource System, China Knowledge Network (CNKI) database and Weipu Chinese Journal Database were searched and the deadline was July 2,2019. Comparative literatures of HoLEP and TUPKEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia were obtained. The observation indicators included international prostate score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoL), international erectile function index (Qmax), perioperative outcome index and complication rate. Meta-analysis was performed by using ReviewManager 5.3 software.Results: A total of 11 articles were included, of which 1 was non-randomized controls and 10 were randomized controls. A total of 980 patients were enrolled, 491 in HoLEP and 489 in TUPKEP. Meta-analysis showed that the IPSS score[MD=0.13，95% CI(-0.08-0.34)，P=0.21], QoL score [MD=-0.07，95% CI(-0.11-0.02)，P=0.003], Qmax [MD=-0.04，95% CI(-0.30-0.23)，P=0.79] were not significantly different between HoLEP and TUPKEP. In terms of safety, operation time of TUPKEP was shorter than that of HoLEP. Intraoperative blood loss was more, and hospitalization and bladder irrigation time of TUPKEP was longer than those of HoLEP, but there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications [OR=0.75, 95% CI (0.41-1.37), P=0.35].Conclusion: HoLEP and TUPKEP for benign prostatic hyperplasia have similar IPSS, QoL, and Qmax, and there are no significant differences in complications between the two approaches. In clinical practice, the best approach should be selected according to the actual conditions of the patients.

参考文献：

[1] 蒋树荣.前列腺增生合并膀胱结石经尿道狄激光碎石术和等离子电切术治疗效果[J].中外医学研究,2016,14(17):5-7.
[2] 许文景,陈明.经尿道前列腺电切术疗效与良性前列腺增生患者术前非手术因素关系的研究进展[J].东南大学学报(医学版),2019,38(4):737-741.
[3] 陈进渠,黄淼文,陈水云,等.经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗前列腺增生的Meta分析[J].中国现代医生,2017,55(8):15-20.
[4] 杨宁,巫嘉文.不同方式治疗前列腺良性增生疗效与安全性对比[J].现代仪器与医疗,2016,22(5):112-114.
[5] 王建峰,肇恒飞.经尿道钬激光剜除术与经尿道等离子切除术治疗良性前列腺增生效果比较[J].中国乡村医药,2017,24(24):40-41.
[6] ELSHAL A M,MEKKAWY R,LAYMON M, et al. Towards optimizing prostate tissue retrieval following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP):assessment of two morcellators and review of literature[J].Can Urol Assoc J,2015,9(9-10):E618-E625.
[7] 汪洋,李志鹏,蔡潜,等.经尿道前列腺等离子剜除术与前列腺钬激光剜除术的近期疗效比较[J].昆明医科大学学报,2016,37(3):52-56.
[8] YANG Z,LIU T,WANG X.Comparison of thulium laser enucleation and plasma kinetic resection of the prostate in a randomized prospective trial with 5-year follow-up[J].Lasers Med Sci,2016,31(9):1797-1802.
[9] 袁宝国,殷全忠.经尿道前列腺等离子切除术与钬激光剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生对比研究[J].实用老年医学,2017,31(4):456-458.
[10] GU M, CHEN Y,LIU C,et al. Comparison of holmium laser en-ucleation and plasma kinetic resection of prostate:a randomized trial with 72-month follow-up[J].J Endourol, 2018,32(2):139-143.
[11] 杨学刚,郭勇.经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术与经尿道前列腺等离子电切术治疗前列腺增生的效果对比[J].当代医药论丛,2019,17(15):76-78.
[12] 王康扬.用两种不同的手术方法治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效对比[J].当代医药论丛,2018,16(11):162-163.
[13] 镇樱树.经尿道前列腺等离子电切术与钬激光剜除术治疗BPH的创伤程度比较[J].海南医学院学报,2016,22(14):1553-1556.
[14] 赵虎. 经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术与经尿道前列腺等离子电切术治疗良性前列腺增生的临床效果对比[J].中国医药指南,2018,16(9):141.
[15] 陈启富,王德明,张小滨.经尿道前列腺等离子切除术与钬激光剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效和安全性对比研究[J].中外医疗,2016,35(27):88-90.
[16] 谭日钊.钬激光剜除术与等离子前列腺切除术治疗前列腺增生的效果对比[J].中国现代药物应用,2017,11(19):20-22.
[17] 刘强,苟险峰,李建国,等.经尿道等离子与钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较[J].临床医药文献杂志(电子版),2016,3(20):3969-3970.
[18] GUO Q,XIAO Y,LI J W,et al. Safety and effect of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus bipolar transurethral plasma kinetic prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia:a meta-analysis[J].Natl J Androl, 2016,22(10):914-922.
[19] CHEN Y,XU H,XU H,et al.Comparison of plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia[J].Int J Clin Exp Med,2016,9(4):7328-7333.
[20] 张豪杰,盛璐,陈然,等.经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术与经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术治疗前列腺增生的疗效比较[J].中国临床医学,2016,23(5):636-639.
[21] 潘杰,梁健峰,陈举锋,等.经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术与经尿道前列腺双极等离子剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生的近期疗效比较[J].中国临床新医学,2019,12(2):158-161.
[22] 黄敏志,黄裕清,余自强,等.经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切与经尿道前列腺汽化电切术治疗大体积前列腺增生的疗效比较及术后尿道狭窄的原因分析与防治体会[J].中国实用医药,2018,13(23):17-20.

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【发表评论】【查看评论】【加入收藏】

提示：您还未登录，请登录！点此登录