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 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.
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 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.