Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar transurethral enucleation for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia, which one is better?

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS

ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1080/13685538.2021.2014807

Jinze Li, Dehong Cao, Yin Huang, Chunyang Meng, Lei Peng, Zhongyou Xia, Yunxiang Li, Qiang Wei

{"title":"Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar transurethral enucleation for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia, which one is better?","authors":"Jinze Li, Dehong Cao, Yin Huang, Chunyang Meng, Lei Peng, Zhongyou Xia, Yunxiang Li, Qiang Wei","doi":"10.1080/13685538.2021.2014807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: 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).Method: 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.Results: A total of 10 studies involving 1725 patients were included. HoLEP had lower operative time (p = .03), shorter catheterization time (p = .007), lower bladder irrigation time (p = .01), and higher enucleation weight (p = .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.Conclusions: 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.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13685538.2021.2014807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: 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).

Method: 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.

Results: A total of 10 studies involving 1725 patients were included. HoLEP had lower operative time (p = .03), shorter catheterization time (p = .007), lower bladder irrigation time (p = .01), and higher enucleation weight (p = .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.

Conclusions: 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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

钬激光去核与双极经尿道去核治疗良性前列腺增生，哪个更好?

目的:评价钬激光前列腺去核术(HoLEP)与双极经尿道前列腺去核术(B-TUEP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的总体疗效和安全性。方法:我们系统地检索电子数据库(PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library)，以确定截至2021年7月的合格比较研究。评估围手术期结果、并发症和功能结果等参数。使用RevMan version 5.4进行分析。结果:共纳入10项研究，1725例患者。与B-TUEP相比，HoLEP的手术时间更短(p = 0.03)，置管时间更短(p = 0.07)，膀胱冲洗时间更短(p = 0.01)，去核重量更大(p = 0.01)。然而，在住院时间(LOS)、血红蛋白下降、输血率和并发症方面，两种技术之间没有显著差异。此外，术后1、3、6、12或24个月的功能结果也没有显著差异。结论:与B-TUEP相比，HoLEP在围手术期参数上更有优势，但在功能结局和并发症方面无明显差异。需要长期随访的大规模研究来比较这两种技术的结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)

CiteScore

9.40

自引率

2.10%

发文量

464