Naspro Richard, Bachmann Alexander, Gilling Peter, Kuntz Rainer, Madersbacher Stephan, Montorsi Francesco, Reich Oliver, Stief Christian, Vavassori Ivano
Urology Unit, Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.
Eur Urol. 2009 Jun;55(6):1345-57. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.070. Epub 2009 Apr 3.
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and 532-nm laser vaporisation of the prostate (with potassium titanyl phosphate [KTP] or lithium borate [LBO]) are promising alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP).
To assess safety, efficacy, and durability by analysing the most recent evidence of both techniques, aiming to identify advantages, pitfalls, and unresolved issues.
A Medline search of recently published data (2006-2008) regarding both techniques over the last 2 yr (January 2006 to September 2008) was performed using evidence obtained from randomised trials (level of evidence: 1b), well-designed controlled studies without randomisation (level of evidence: 2a), individual cohort studies (level of evidence: 2b), individual case control studies (level of evidence: 3), and case series (level of evidence: 4).
In the last 2 yr, several case-control and cohort studies have demonstrated reproducibility, safety, and efficacy of HoLEP and 80-W KTP laser vaporisation. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for HoLEP, two compared with TURP and two compared with OP, with follow-up >24 mo. Results confirmed general efficacy and durability of HoLEP, as compared with both standard techniques. Only two RCTs were available comparing KTP laser vaporisation with TURP with short-term follow-up, and only one RCT was available comparing KTP laser vaporisation with OP. The results confirmed the overall low perioperative morbidity of KTP laser vaporisation, although efficacy was comparable to TURP in the short term, despite a higher reoperation rate.
Although they are at different points of maturation, KTP or LBO laser vaporisation and HoLEP are promising alternatives to both TURP and OP. Sufficient data proves HoLEP's durability for most prostate sizes at long-term follow-up; KTP laser vaporisation needs further evaluation to define the reoperation rate. Increasing the number of quality prospective RCTs with adequate follow-up is mandatory to tailor each technique to the right patient.
钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)以及532纳米激光前列腺汽化术(使用磷酸钛钾[KTP]或硼酸锂[LBO])是经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)和开放性前列腺切除术(OP)颇具前景的替代方法。
通过分析这两种技术的最新证据来评估安全性、有效性和持久性,旨在找出其优势、缺陷及未解决的问题。
利用从随机试验(证据级别:1b)、精心设计的非随机对照研究(证据级别:2a)、个体队列研究(证据级别:2b)、个体病例对照研究(证据级别:3)以及病例系列(证据级别:4)中获得的证据,对过去2年(2006年1月至2008年9月)关于这两种技术的最新发表数据进行了医学文献数据库(Medline)检索。
在过去2年中,多项病例对照研究和队列研究已证明HoLEP以及80瓦KTP激光汽化术的可重复性、安全性和有效性。有四项随机对照试验(RCT)可用于HoLEP,其中两项将其与TURP进行比较,两项将其与OP进行比较,随访时间超过24个月。结果证实,与两种标准技术相比,HoLEP具有总体有效性和持久性。仅有两项RCT将KTP激光汽化术与TURP进行了短期随访比较,仅有一项RCT将KTP激光汽化术与OP进行了比较。结果证实了KTP激光汽化术总体围手术期发病率较低,尽管短期内其有效性与TURP相当,但再次手术率较高。
尽管KTP或LBO激光汽化术以及HoLEP处于不同的成熟阶段,但它们是TURP和OP颇具前景的替代方法。足够的数据证明HoLEP在长期随访中对大多数前列腺大小的持久性;KTP激光汽化术需要进一步评估以确定再次手术率。增加高质量前瞻性RCT的数量并进行充分随访,对于为合适的患者选择合适的技术至关重要。