Department of Urology/Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR China.
West China School of Clinical Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR China.
Aging Male. 2021 Dec;24(1):160-170. doi: 10.1080/13685538.2021.2014807.
This study aims to evaluate the overall efficacy and safety between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) to identify eligible comparative studies as of July 2021. The parameters including perioperative results, complications, and functional outcomes were evaluated. RevMan version 5.4 was used for the analysis.
A total of 10 studies involving 1725 patients were included. HoLEP had lower operative time ( = .03), shorter catheterization time ( = .007), lower bladder irrigation time ( = .01), and higher enucleation weight ( = .01) compared with B-TUEP. However, there were no significant differences between the techniques regarding the length of stay (LOS), hemoglobin drop, transfusion rates, and complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were also observed in postoperative functional outcomes at 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 months.
HoLEP has more advantages in perioperative parameters compared with B-TUEP, but no significant differences are found regarding functional outcomes and complications. Large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are required to compare the outcomes of these two techniques.
本研究旨在评估钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)与双极经尿道前列腺剜除术(B-TUEP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的总体疗效和安全性。
我们系统地检索了电子数据库(PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library),以确定截至 2021 年 7 月的合格对照研究。评估了围手术期结果、并发症和功能结局等参数。使用 RevMan 版本 5.4 进行分析。
共纳入 10 项研究,涉及 1725 例患者。与 B-TUEP 相比,HoLEP 具有更低的手术时间( = .03)、更短的导尿管时间( = .007)、更低的膀胱冲洗时间( = .01)和更高的剜除重量( = .01)。然而,两种技术在住院时间(LOS)、血红蛋白下降、输血率和并发症方面没有显著差异。此外,在术后 1、3、6、12 或 24 个月的术后功能结局方面也没有观察到显著差异。
与 B-TUEP 相比,HoLEP 在围手术期参数方面具有更多优势,但在功能结局和并发症方面没有显著差异。需要进行大规模、长期随访的研究来比较这两种技术的结局。