Suppr超能文献

冷刀与激光尿道切开术治疗尿道狭窄的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析比较试验。

Comparison between cold knife and laser urethrotomy for urethral stricture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.

West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

World J Urol. 2019 Dec;37(12):2785-2793. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02729-3. Epub 2019 Mar 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Previous study compared limited number of parameters post the treatment of cold knife and laser urethrotomy for urethral stricture and controversy about the superiority of those two techniques still remains. This study aims to update the evidence and provide better clinical guidance.

METHOD

We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, ClinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles comparing cold knife and laser urethrotomy for urethral stricture. Parameters including maximum urinary flow (Q), recurrence, reoperation, complications, operation time, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score were compared using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Seven articles involving 453 patients were eventually included. The cold-knife group had better 6-month Q (MD - 0.95, 95% CI - 1.49 to - 0.41) and similar 3-month and 12-month Q compared with the laser group. No significance was observed regarding the comparison of recurrence rate. The laser group had lower risk of bleeding (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.43), lower rate of reoperation (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.81) and longer operation time (MD 4.09, 95% CI 3.35-4.82). There was no significant difference in terms of other complications and VAS pain score.

CONCLUSION

Cold knife and laser urethrotomy had similar efficacy regarding short-term and long-term recurrence rate and Q, except that the cold-knife group had slightly better 6-month Q. However, the laser group had less risk of bleeding and lower rate of reoperation but also longer operation time.

摘要

背景

先前的研究比较了冷刀和激光尿道切开术治疗尿道狭窄后少数参数,这两种技术的优势仍存在争议。本研究旨在更新证据并提供更好的临床指导。

方法

我们系统地检索了 Pubmed、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 Cochrane 图书馆对照试验中心注册库,以查找比较冷刀和激光尿道切开术治疗尿道狭窄的文章。使用 RevMan 5.3 比较了最大尿流率(Q)、复发率、再次手术率、并发症、手术时间和视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分等参数。

结果

最终纳入了 7 篇涉及 453 例患者的文章。与激光组相比,冷刀组 6 个月时 Q 更好(MD -0.95,95%CI-1.49 至-0.41),3 个月和 12 个月时 Q 相似。复发率的比较无显著性差异。激光组出血风险较低(OR 0.08,95%CI 0.01-0.43),再次手术率较低(OR 0.39,95%CI 0.19-0.81),手术时间较长(MD 4.09,95%CI 3.35-4.82)。其他并发症和 VAS 疼痛评分无显著差异。

结论

冷刀和激光尿道切开术在短期和长期复发率和 Q 方面具有相似的疗效,除了冷刀组 6 个月时 Q 略好。然而,激光组出血风险较低,再次手术率较低,但手术时间较长。

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