Giacomo Maria Pirola, Daniele Castellani, Martina Maggi, Ee Jean Lim, Vinson Wai Shun Chan, Angelo Naselli, Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh, Vineet Gauhar
{"title":"功率设置是否影响钬激光前列腺摘除的手术效果?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Giacomo Maria Pirola, Daniele Castellani, Martina Maggi, Ee Jean Lim, Vinson Wai Shun Chan, Angelo Naselli, Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh, Vineet Gauhar","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2022.0104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this article was to enumerate the differences in immediate and postoperative outcomes for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) performed with low-power (LP) or high-power (HP) laser settings through a systematic review of comparative studies.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. Potential clinical differences among LP and HP HoLEP were determined using the PICOS (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) model, where outcomes were surgical time, operative efficiency, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion, incontinence rate, maximum urinary flow rate (QMax) and International Prostatic Symptom score (IPSS). Retrospective, prospective nonrandomized, randomized studies, and meeting abstracts were considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of five studies were included for meta-analysis. No significant differences between LP and HP HoLEP were evidenced in terms of intraoperative variables (surgical time, surgical efficiency); postoperative outcomes (length of stay, length of catheterization); postoperative complications; functional results (IPSS; Qmax). Urinary incontinence rate did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.362.47, p = 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study shows equal outcomes in outcomes from HoLEP performed with LP or HP energy settings. Even if further comparative studies are still needed to increase the level of evidence, those results encourage a further clinical adoption of LP HoLEP.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/73/f3/CEJU-75-0104.PMC9326704.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does power setting impact surgical outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate? A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Giacomo Maria Pirola, Daniele Castellani, Martina Maggi, Ee Jean Lim, Vinson Wai Shun Chan, Angelo Naselli, Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh, Vineet Gauhar\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2022.0104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this article was to enumerate the differences in immediate and postoperative outcomes for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) performed with low-power (LP) or high-power (HP) laser settings through a systematic review of comparative studies.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. Potential clinical differences among LP and HP HoLEP were determined using the PICOS (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) model, where outcomes were surgical time, operative efficiency, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion, incontinence rate, maximum urinary flow rate (QMax) and International Prostatic Symptom score (IPSS). Retrospective, prospective nonrandomized, randomized studies, and meeting abstracts were considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of five studies were included for meta-analysis. No significant differences between LP and HP HoLEP were evidenced in terms of intraoperative variables (surgical time, surgical efficiency); postoperative outcomes (length of stay, length of catheterization); postoperative complications; functional results (IPSS; Qmax). Urinary incontinence rate did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.362.47, p = 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study shows equal outcomes in outcomes from HoLEP performed with LP or HP energy settings. Even if further comparative studies are still needed to increase the level of evidence, those results encourage a further clinical adoption of LP HoLEP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/73/f3/CEJU-75-0104.PMC9326704.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/6/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
前言:本文的目的是通过对比较研究的系统回顾,列举低功率(LP)或高功率(HP)激光设置进行钬激光前列腺去核(HoLEP)的即时和术后结果的差异。材料和方法:我们使用MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials进行了系统的文献综述。采用PICOS(患者干预比较结果研究类型)模型确定LP和HP HoLEP的潜在临床差异,其中结果包括手术时间、手术效率、术后置管时间、住院时间、输血、失禁率、最大尿流率(QMax)和国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)。我们考虑了回顾性、前瞻性、非随机、随机研究和会议摘要。结果:共纳入5项研究进行meta分析。在术中变量(手术时间、手术效率)方面,LP与HP之间无显著差异;术后结果(住院时间、置管时间);术后并发症;功能结果(IPSS;Qmax)。两组尿失禁率无差异(OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.362.47, p = 0.91)。结论:该研究显示,在LP或HP能量设置下进行HoLEP的结果相同。即使还需要进一步的比较研究来增加证据水平,这些结果也鼓励了LP HoLEP的进一步临床应用。
Does power setting impact surgical outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: The aim of this article was to enumerate the differences in immediate and postoperative outcomes for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) performed with low-power (LP) or high-power (HP) laser settings through a systematic review of comparative studies.
Material and methods: We performed a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. Potential clinical differences among LP and HP HoLEP were determined using the PICOS (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) model, where outcomes were surgical time, operative efficiency, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion, incontinence rate, maximum urinary flow rate (QMax) and International Prostatic Symptom score (IPSS). Retrospective, prospective nonrandomized, randomized studies, and meeting abstracts were considered.
Results: A total of five studies were included for meta-analysis. No significant differences between LP and HP HoLEP were evidenced in terms of intraoperative variables (surgical time, surgical efficiency); postoperative outcomes (length of stay, length of catheterization); postoperative complications; functional results (IPSS; Qmax). Urinary incontinence rate did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.362.47, p = 0.91).
Conclusions: The study shows equal outcomes in outcomes from HoLEP performed with LP or HP energy settings. Even if further comparative studies are still needed to increase the level of evidence, those results encourage a further clinical adoption of LP HoLEP.