BJU international · 2004
Transurethral electrovaporization vs transurethral resection for symptomatic prostatic obstruction: a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Poulakis Vassilis, Dahm Philipp, Witzsch Ulrich, Sutton Alex J, Becht Eduard
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of transurethral electrovaporization (TUEVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
METHODS: Publications comparing TUEVP and TURP were identified systematically using Medline, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and other database search engines. From a total of 25 randomized controlled trials, 20 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a formal meta-analysis. Primary endpoints were symptom scores and peak urinary flow rates. Secondary endpoints included transfusion requirements, operative time, duration of catheterization, incidence of adverse events, hospital stay, re-operation rates and sexual dysfunction.
RESULTS: After 1 year of follow-up there was no significant difference between TUEVP and TURP in urinary symptom scores and peak urinary flow rates. There was heterogeneity at baseline for both primary outcome measures. TUEVP was associated with significantly lower transfusion requirements, a shorter catheterization time, and a shorter length of stay. TURP was associated with a lower risk of urinary retention afterward and re-operation than was TUEVP.
CONCLUSION: This formal meta-analysis suggests that both TUEVP and TURP in patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction provide comparable improvements in maximum urinary flow rates and symptom scores. While comparative analysis is limited by the methodological shortcomings of the underlying studies and the short follow-up, both TURP and TUEVP may offer distinct advantages in terms of secondary outcomes. A future, well-designed, multicentre randomized clinical trial with extended follow-up may be needed to better define the role of vaporization techniques in treating patients with symptomatic BPH.
METHODS: Publications comparing TUEVP and TURP were identified systematically using Medline, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and other database search engines. From a total of 25 randomized controlled trials, 20 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a formal meta-analysis. Primary endpoints were symptom scores and peak urinary flow rates. Secondary endpoints included transfusion requirements, operative time, duration of catheterization, incidence of adverse events, hospital stay, re-operation rates and sexual dysfunction.
RESULTS: After 1 year of follow-up there was no significant difference between TUEVP and TURP in urinary symptom scores and peak urinary flow rates. There was heterogeneity at baseline for both primary outcome measures. TUEVP was associated with significantly lower transfusion requirements, a shorter catheterization time, and a shorter length of stay. TURP was associated with a lower risk of urinary retention afterward and re-operation than was TUEVP.
CONCLUSION: This formal meta-analysis suggests that both TUEVP and TURP in patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction provide comparable improvements in maximum urinary flow rates and symptom scores. While comparative analysis is limited by the methodological shortcomings of the underlying studies and the short follow-up, both TURP and TUEVP may offer distinct advantages in terms of secondary outcomes. A future, well-designed, multicentre randomized clinical trial with extended follow-up may be needed to better define the role of vaporization techniques in treating patients with symptomatic BPH.