Wang Li, Chen Xiaobin, Li Kunpeng, Yin Shan, Zhu Pingyu
Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China.
Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, 730030, China.
Asian J Surg. 2023 Dec;46(12):5411-5420. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.05.003. Epub 2023 Jun 1.
To evaluate the perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) among patients with and without prior transurethral prostate surgery. we performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases for articles evaluating the effectiveness of salvage HoLEP (S-HoLEP) versus primary HoLEP (P-HoLEP) until January 2023. Nine studies involving 6044 patients were included for both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Compared with P-HoLEP, S-HoLEP used more energy (weighted mean difference = 14.27 KJ; 95% CI = 4.75-23.79; P = 0.003) and had an increased incidence of postoperative clot retention (odds ratio = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.25-3.59; P = 0.005) and urethral stricture (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.04-3.8; P = 0.04). However, the International Prostate Symptom Score at the sixth month of follow-up was significantly lower for S-HoLEP than for P-HoLEP (WMD = -0.80; 95% CI = -1.38 to -0.22; P = 0.007). There was no significant difference between S-HoLEP and P-HoLEP in terms of operative time, enucleation time, enucleation efficiency, morcellation time, resected weight, catheterisation time, hospital stay duration, quality of life, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual and intraoperative and postoperative overall complications. compared with P-HoLEP, S-HoLEP is still a feasible and effective method for treating residual benign prostatic hyperplasia, with only a slight increase in the probability of energy utilisation, clot retention and urethral stricture. Despite these minor discrepancies, the overall beneficial effects of the two modalities on symptom resolution is noteworthy.
为评估有或无既往经尿道前列腺手术史的患者接受钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)的围手术期及功能结局,我们对Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Scopus数据库进行了系统检索,以查找评估挽救性HoLEP(S-HoLEP)与初次HoLEP(P-HoLEP)有效性的文章,检索截至2023年1月。纳入9项研究,共6044例患者进行定量和定性分析。与P-HoLEP相比,S-HoLEP使用的能量更多(加权平均差=14.27千焦;95%置信区间=4.75-23.79;P=0.003),术后血块潴留发生率增加(比值比=2.12;95%置信区间=1.25-3.59;P=0.005),尿道狭窄发生率增加(比值比=1.99;95%置信区间=1.04-3.8;P=0.04)。然而,S-HoLEP随访6个月时的国际前列腺症状评分显著低于P-HoLEP(加权平均差=-0.80;95%置信区间=-1.38至-0.22;P=0.007)。S-HoLEP与P-HoLEP在手术时间、剜除时间、剜除效率、碎块时间、切除重量、导尿时间、住院时间、生活质量、最大尿流率、残余尿量以及术中和术后总体并发症方面无显著差异。与P-HoLEP相比,S-HoLEP仍是治疗残余良性前列腺增生的一种可行且有效的方法,只是能量利用、血块潴留和尿道狭窄的概率略有增加。尽管存在这些微小差异,但两种术式对症状缓解的总体有益效果值得关注。