摘要:目的:探討良性前列腺增生經尿道前列腺電切術圍手術期的護理經驗。方法:回顧性分析96例良性前列腺增生患者臨床資料。結果:96例患者手術順利,圍手術期經周密的護理,療效滿意,無明顯并發癥。結論:周密的手術期護理對經尿道前列腺電切術治療老年良性前列腺增生十分重要。Abstract: Objective: To investigate the perioperative nursing care of transurethral prostatic resection (TURP). Methods: The data of 96 TURP cases were analyzed retrospectively. Results: All the operations were performed successfully, and there were no obvious complications among the patients with precise nursing care. Conclusion: It is very important for precise nursing care to the patients who underwent 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.
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.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the association between 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) and risk of sexual dysfunction in subjects with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect studies on the association between 5ARIs and risk of sexual dysfunction in subjects with BPH from inception to October 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed by using Stata 12.0 software.ResultsA total of 15 studies involving 17 774 subjects were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with the placebo group, 5ARIs could significantly increase risk of erectile dysfunction (RR=1.52, 95%CI 1.36 to 1.69, P<0.000 1), while decrease libido (RR=1.79, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.32, P<0.000 1) and ejaculation disorder (RR=2.97, 95%CI 1.82 to 4.83, P<0.000 1) in subjects with BPH. Subgroup analysis of the type of 5ARIs, intervention period, publication year and sample size showed that the 5ARIs had a higher risk of sexual dysfunction than the placebo group.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that 5ARIs can increase risk of erectile dysfunction, decrease libido and ejaculation disorder in subjects with BPH. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the 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 探討良性前列腺增生癥（benign prostatic hyperplasia，BPH）應用經尿道前列腺普通電切鏡剜除術（transurethral electro enucleation of the prostate，TUEP）的方法及療效。 方法 2007年12月－2010年7月，應用TUEP治療BPH患者201例，并根據前列腺腺體的大小及形狀的不同采用不同的剜除方法以提高手術的成功率。 結果 全部患者均順利完成手術，切除前列腺重量平均38 g，平均手術時間100 min，術后平均留置導尿管時間5~7 d，術后平均住院時間5.5 d。 結論 TUEP是治療良性前列腺增生癥的一種有效方法。【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 objectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic enucleation for prostate (PKEP) vs plasmakinetic resection for prostate (PKRP) in treating benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Methods Such databases as PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMbase, the ISI Web of Knowledge databases, VIP, CNKI, CBM and Wanfang were searched from their establishment to March 2011 for collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PKEP vs PKRP for the treatment of BPH, and the references of those RCTs were also searched by hand. After study selection, assessment and data extraction conducted by two reviewers independently, meta-analyses were performed by using the RevMan 5.1 software. The level of evidence was assessed by using the GRADE system. Results Eight studies involving 991 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) safety indicator: compared with the PKRP, PKEP had shorter operation time (SMD=1.07, 95%CI 0.19 to 1.94, P=0.02), less intraoperative bleeding (SMD=2.06, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.69, Plt;0.01), much quantity of resectable prostate (SMD= –0.91, 95%CI –1.33 to –0.48, Plt;0.000 1), less intraoperative perforation (RR=4.48, 95%CI 1.43 to 14.02, P=0.01), shorter catheterization time (SMD=1.98, 95%CI 0.39 to 3.57, P=0.01), shorter bladder irrigation time (SMD=3.49, 95%CI 0.51 to 6.47, P=0.02) and shorter hospital stay (SMD=0.89, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.13, Plt;0.01), but there was no significant difference in total postoperative complications (RR=0.82, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.24, P=0.35); and b) efficacy indicator: compared with the PKRP, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was lower after 3 months, the Quality Of Life (QOL) was higher after 3 months, and the improvement of residual urine volume (RUV) was better after 6 months; but other efficacy indicators had no significant difference between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). Based on GRADE system, all the evidence was at level C and weak recommendation (2C). Conclusion The current evidence indicates that PKEP is similar to PKRP in the treating effect, but it resects the proliferated prostate more cleanly with shorter operation time, lesser bleeding and more safety than PKRP; for the poor quality of the original studies, a prudent choice is suggested; and more high-quality, large-sample studies are need.
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.
