Dahm Philipp, MacDonald Roderick, McKenzie Lauren, Jung Jae Hung, Greer Nancy, Wilt Timothy
Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea.
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 Feb 24;26:72-82. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.02.001. eCollection 2021 Apr.
Several newer device-based procedures have recently become available for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.
To assess the longer-term comparative effectiveness (defined as >12 mo of follow-up) of the newer treatment modalities prostatic urethral lift (PUL), transurethral prostate convective radiofrequency water vapor (Rezūm), Aquablation, and prostatic arterial embolization (PAE).
Ovid Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality databases were searched through September 30, 2019; hand searches of references of relevant studies were also performed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language. We excluded observational studies.
One RCT ( = 91) found that patients undergoing PUL may be less likely to respond (risk ratio [RR] 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-1.0; low certainty of evidence [CoE]) and have a higher mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS; mean difference 6.1; 95% CI 2.2-10.0; low CoE) than those undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Among patients undergoing PAE, one small RCT ( = 30) reported similar IPSS response rates (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.7-1.1; low CoE) and one trial ( = 107) found similar mean IPSS (-0.7; 95% CI -1.3 to 2.7; moderate CoE) scores to those among patients undergoing TURP. A single study on Aquablation reported 12 mo of follow-up only, and a single 3-mo trial compared Rezūm with sham treatment.
The current best evidence underlying these newer therapies is limited to few trials (PUL and PAE), short-term follow-up of 12 mo (Aquablation and Rezūm), or sham comparison only (Rezūm).
Evidence for four of the newer surgical treatments for men with an enlarged prostate is limited to few small trials with short-term follow-up; only one trial compared a new treatment modality with sham surgery.
最近有几种新的基于设备的手术方法可用于治疗因良性前列腺增生导致下尿路症状的男性,但它们的有效性仍不确定。
评估新型治疗方式前列腺尿道悬吊术(PUL)、经尿道前列腺对流射频水蒸气消融术(Rezūm)、水刀前列腺切除术和前列腺动脉栓塞术(PAE)的长期比较有效性(定义为随访超过12个月)。
检索了截至2019年9月30日的Ovid Medline、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)和医疗保健研究与质量机构数据库;还对手检了相关研究的参考文献。符合条件的研究为以英文发表的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们排除了观察性研究。
一项RCT(n = 91)发现,接受PUL的患者反应的可能性可能较低(风险比[RR] 0.8;95%置信区间[CI] 0.7 - 1.0;证据确定性低),且国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)的平均得分较高(平均差异6.1;95% CI 2.2 - 10.0;证据确定性低),高于接受经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)的患者。在接受PAE的患者中,一项小型RCT(n = 30)报告了相似的IPSS反应率(RR 0.9;95% CI 0.7 - 1.1;证据确定性低),一项试验(n = 107)发现其IPSS平均得分(-0.7;95% CI -1.3至2.7;证据确定性中等)与接受TURP的患者相似。一项关于水刀前列腺切除术的研究仅报告了12个月的随访情况,一项为期3个月的试验将Rezūm与假手术治疗进行了比较。
这些新疗法目前的最佳证据仅限于少数试验(PUL和PAE)、12个月的短期随访(水刀前列腺切除术和Rezūm)或仅与假手术的比较(Rezūm)。
对于四种治疗前列腺增生男性的新手术疗法的证据仅限于少数短期随访的小型试验;只有一项试验将一种新的治疗方式与假手术进行了比较。