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。

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-22 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2022.0104
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,&nbsp;Daniele Castellani,&nbsp;Martina Maggi,&nbsp;Ee Jean Lim,&nbsp;Vinson Wai Shun Chan,&nbsp;Angelo Naselli,&nbsp;Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Daniele Castellani,&nbsp;Martina Maggi,&nbsp;Ee Jean Lim,&nbsp;Vinson Wai Shun Chan,&nbsp;Angelo Naselli,&nbsp;Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh,&nbsp;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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
Transperitoneal single-port robotic Firefly-guided bladder diverticulectomy and simple prostatectomy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy challenges in managing spinal cord neuropathy patients. Lessons learned from a scoping review. Robotic left nephrectomy with level IV inferior vena cava thrombectomy using the AngioVac system. Detrusor underactivity in symptomatic anterior pelvic organ prolapse. The role of gel-infused translabial ultrasound as a new modality in evaluation of female urethral stricture.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1