PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
摘要：
■本文的目的是通过对比较研究的系统评价，列举低功率（LP）或高功率（HP）激光下前列腺钬激光摘除术（HoLEP）的即刻和术后结局的差异。
■我们使用MEDLINE进行了系统的文献综述，EMBASE,和科克伦中央控制的试验登记册。使用PICOS（患者干预比较结果研究类型）模型确定LP和HPHoLEP之间的潜在临床差异，结果是手术时间，手术效率，术后插管时间,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）。回顾性,前瞻性非随机，随机研究，并考虑了会议摘要。
■共纳入5项研究进行荟萃分析。术中变量（手术时间，手术效率)；术后结局(住院时间，导管插入长度）；术后并发症；功能结果（IPSS；Qmax）。两组尿失禁发生率无差异(OR0.95,95%CI0.362.47,p=0.91)。
该研究显示，在LP或HP能量设置下进行HoLEP的结果相同。即使仍然需要进一步的比较研究来提高证据水平，这些结果鼓励LPHoLEP的进一步临床采用.
■我们使用MEDLINE进行了系统的文献综述，EMBASE,和科克伦中央控制的试验登记册。使用PICOS（患者干预比较结果研究类型）模型确定LP和HPHoLEP之间的潜在临床差异，结果是手术时间，手术效率，术后插管时间,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）。回顾性,前瞻性非随机，随机研究，并考虑了会议摘要。
■共纳入5项研究进行荟萃分析。术中变量（手术时间，手术效率)；术后结局(住院时间，导管插入长度）；术后并发症；功能结果（IPSS；Qmax）。两组尿失禁发生率无差异(OR0.95,95%CI0.362.47,p=0.91)。
该研究显示，在LP或HP能量设置下进行HoLEP的结果相同。即使仍然需要进一步的比较研究来提高证据水平，这些结果鼓励LPHoLEP的进一步临床采用.
