Suppr超能文献

国际多中心随机对照临床试验中期结果比较双极与单极经尿道前列腺切除术。

Midterm results from an international multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63(4):667-76. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.003. Epub 2012 Oct 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pooled data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with short-term follow-up have shown a safety advantage for bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) compared with monopolar TURP (M-TURP). However, RCTs with follow-up >12 mo are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the midterm safety/efficacy of B-TURP versus M-TURP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From July 2006 to June 2009, TURP candidates with benign prostatic obstruction were consecutively recruited in four centres, randomised 1:1 into the M-TURP or the B-TURP arm and regularly followed up to 36 mo postoperatively. A total of 295 patients were enrolled.

INTERVENTION

M-TURP or B-TURP using the AUTOCON II 400 electrosurgical unit.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Safety was estimated by complication rates with a special emphasis on urethral strictures (US) and bladder neck contractures (BNCs) recorded during the short-term (up to 12 mo) and midterm (up to 36 mo) follow-up. Efficacy quantified by changes in maximum urine flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume, and International Prostate Symptom Score was compared with baseline, and reintervention rates in each arm were also evaluated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 279 patients received treatment after allocation. Mean follow-up was 28.8 mo. A total of 186 of 279 patients (66.7%) completed the 36-mo follow-up. Posttreatment withdrawal rates did not differ significantly between arms. Safety was assessed in 230 patients (82.4%) at a mean follow-up of 33.4 mo. Ten US cases were seen in each arm (M-TURP vs B-TURP: 9.3% vs 8.2%; p=0.959); two versus eight BNC cases (M-TURP vs B-TURP: 1.9% vs 6.6%; p=0.108) were collectively detected at the midterm follow-up. Resection type was not a significant predictor of the risk of US/BNC formation. Efficacy was similar between arms and durable. A total of 10 of 230 patients (4.3%) experienced failure to cure and needed reintervention without significant differences between arms. High overall reintervention rates, withdrawal rates, and sample size determination not based on US/BNC rates represent potential limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The midterm safety and efficacy of B-TURP and M-TURP are comparable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register, NTR703 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=703).

摘要

背景

短期随访的随机对照试验(RCT)的汇总数据显示,与单极经尿道前列腺切除术(M-TURP)相比,双极经尿道前列腺切除术(B-TURP)具有安全性优势。然而,随访时间超过 12 个月的 RCT 很少。

目的

比较 B-TURP 与 M-TURP 的中期安全性/疗效。

设计、地点和参与者:从 2006 年 7 月至 2009 年 6 月,连续在四个中心招募经尿道前列腺切除术候选患者,他们患有良性前列腺增生,随机分为 M-TURP 或 B-TURP 组,并定期随访至术后 36 个月。共纳入 295 例患者。

干预措施

使用 AUTOCON II 400 电外科设备进行 M-TURP 或 B-TURP。

观察指标和统计分析

安全性通过并发症发生率进行评估,特别关注短期(最长 12 个月)和中期(最长 36 个月)随访期间记录的尿道狭窄(US)和膀胱颈挛缩(BNC)。疗效通过最大尿流率、残余尿量和国际前列腺症状评分的变化与基线进行比较,并评估每个臂的再干预率。

结果和局限性

共有 279 例患者在分配后接受了治疗。平均随访时间为 28.8 个月。共有 279 例患者中的 186 例(66.7%)完成了 36 个月的随访。各臂的治疗后退出率无显著差异。安全性在 230 例患者(82.4%)中进行评估,平均随访时间为 33.4 个月。各臂均有 10 例 US 病例(M-TURP 与 B-TURP:9.3%与 8.2%;p=0.959),中期随访时共发现 2 例和 8 例 BNC 病例(M-TURP 与 B-TURP:1.9%与 6.6%;p=0.108)。切除术类型不是 US/BNC 形成风险的显著预测因素。各臂的疗效相似且持久。共有 230 例患者中的 10 例(4.3%)治疗失败需要再次干预,但各臂之间无显著差异。总体较高的再干预率、退出率以及未基于 US/BNC 率确定的样本量是潜在的局限性。

结论

B-TURP 和 M-TURP 的中期安全性和疗效相当。

试验注册

荷兰试验注册处,NTR703(http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=703)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验