Department of Urology, Beijing TianTan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.119 South 4th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Department of Urology, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, NO. 20 East Yuhuangding Road, Yantai, 264000, Shandong, China.
Lasers Med Sci. 2021 Dec;36(9):1897-1907. doi: 10.1007/s10103-021-03255-8. Epub 2021 Jan 28.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 532-nm GreenLight HPS laser (PVP) vs 980-nm diode laser vaporization of the prostate (DVP) in treating patients with lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, EMBASE (until Jun 2020), and original references of the included articles were searched. PRISMA checklist was followed. A total of four articles including 521 patients were studied. There was no significant difference in total operating time and lasering time of the two laser surgeries; however, a higher amount of total applied laser energy was delivered with DVP (P < 0.00001). The catheterization time after surgery in the PVP group was significantly longer than that in the DVP group (P = 0.0008), whereas the hospitalization time was significantly shorter than that in the DVP group (P = 0.02). Compared with baseline, there were significant improvements in the voiding variables over the observation period after surgery in both groups. PVP had a significant improvement in total international prostate symptom score (IPSS) (P = 0.0002) and quality of life (QoL) index (P = 0.003) compared with DVP after ≥12 months of postoperative follow-up. For complications after surgery, PVP had a larger number in needing for electrocautery to control bleeding (P = 0.02). Besides, the application of DVP resulted in a higher incidence of bladder neck contracture (P = 0.0007), dysuria (≥1 month) (P = 0.002), transient incontinence (P = 0.003), postoperative recatheterization (P = 0.02), and reoperation (P < 0.0001). The voiding parameters and micturition symptoms of patients with BPH after two kinds of laser surgery were significantly improved. However, PVP was more beneficial than DVP in terms of total IPSS, QoL index, and hospitalization time. Moreover, PVP showed a lower incidence of postoperative adverse events, but a higher risk of postoperative bleeding. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020203222.
评价 532nm 绿激光前列腺剜除术(PVP)与 980nm 二极管激光前列腺汽化术(DVP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)下尿路症状(LUTS)患者的疗效和安全性。检索 PubMed、Cochrane Library 数据库、EMBASE(截至 2020 年 6 月)和纳入文章的原始参考文献。遵循 PRISMA 清单。共纳入 4 项研究,包括 521 例患者。两种激光手术的总手术时间和激光时间无显著差异;然而,DVP 中应用的总激光能量更高(P < 0.00001)。PVP 组术后导尿管留置时间明显长于 DVP 组(P = 0.0008),而住院时间明显短于 DVP 组(P = 0.02)。与基线相比,两组术后观察期排尿变量均有显著改善。与 DVP 相比,PVP 在总国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)(P = 0.0002)和生活质量(QoL)指数(P = 0.003)方面有显著改善。术后 12 个月以上随访时,PVP 发生电切止血需要的并发症数量明显多于 DVP(P = 0.02)。此外,DVP 导致膀胱颈挛缩(P = 0.0007)、排尿困难(≥1 个月)(P = 0.002)、短暂性尿失禁(P = 0.003)、术后再置管(P = 0.02)和再手术(P < 0.0001)的发生率较高。两种激光手术后,BPH 患者的排尿参数和排尿症状均有显著改善。然而,在总 IPSS、QoL 指数和住院时间方面,PVP 比 DVP 更有利。此外,PVP 术后不良事件发生率较低,但术后出血风险较高。PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42020203222。