發(fā)布時間：2018-07-26 15:42

【摘要】：目的:通過收集以往相關(guān)文獻(xiàn),比較選擇性綠激光汽化術(shù)(Photoselective vaporizationof the prostate,PVP)與前列腺電切術(shù)(Transurethral resection of prostate,TURP)對治療良性前列腺增生癥(Benign prostate hyperpkia,BPH)的臨床療效。方法:按照Cochrane協(xié)作網(wǎng)工作手冊的要求制定檢索策略,計算機(jī)檢索:英文檢索:PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Scince等數(shù)據(jù)庫;中文檢索:萬方、維普、CNKI、CBMdisc等數(shù)據(jù)庫,收集比較PVP及TURP治療BPH的隨機(jī)對照試驗文獻(xiàn),并由兩位系統(tǒng)評價員分別進(jìn)行獨立文獻(xiàn)篩查、質(zhì)量評價和資料提取,并交叉核對。使用統(tǒng)計軟件RevMan5.3完成Meta分析。結(jié)果:最終納入12篇文獻(xiàn),均為隨機(jī)對照試驗,總樣本量1451例,PVP組732例,TURP組719例。Meta分析結(jié)果:PVP組比TURP組住院時間短[(P0.01),95%CI為(-3.63~-2.13)],術(shù)后留置導(dǎo)尿管時間短[(P0.01),95%CI為(-2.42~-1.21)],術(shù)后血紅蛋白下降少[(P0.0 1),95%CI為(-1.36~-0.71)],術(shù)后輸血發(fā)生率低[(RR=0.1,P0.001),95%CI為(0.04~-0.26)];術(shù)后隨訪6個月及12個月IPSS及Qmax差異均無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(均P0.05)。結(jié)論:選擇性綠激光汽化術(shù)與前列腺電切術(shù)均能顯著改善輕、中度前列腺增生患者的癥狀,具有相似的臨床療效。但與TURP相比,PVP操作更安全,術(shù)后留置導(dǎo)尿時間及住院時間更短;遠(yuǎn)期療效方面PVP與TURP無顯著差異。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the clinical efficacy of selective green laser vaporization (Photoselective vaporizationof the prostata) and (Transurethral resection of prostata (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: according to the requirements of the work manual of Cochrane Cooperative Network, the search strategy was formulated. The computer search was conducted to search the database of the Web of Scince, such as the Web of Scince, and so on, and the Chinese retrieval was done with the following databases: Wanfang, Vipric, CBMdisc, etc. The randomized controlled trials of PVP and TURP for BPH were collected and compared, and the independent literature screening, quality evaluation, data extraction and cross-check were carried out by two systematic evaluators. Use statistical software RevMan5.3 to complete Meta analysis. Results: twelve articles were included, all of which were randomized controlled trials. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the hospitalization time of TURP group was shorter than that of TURP group [(P0.01) 95 CI was (-3.63) -2.13], the duration of postoperative catheter was short [(-2.42 ~ 1.21) CI was (-2.42) -1.21], the hemoglobin decreased less [(P0.01) 95 CI was (-1.36 鹵-0.71)], the incidence of blood transfusion was low [(RRR0.1P0.001) 95 CI was (0.04- 0.26)]; There was no significant difference in IPSS and Qmax after 6 months and 12 months follow-up (P 0.05). Conclusion: selective green laser vaporization and electroprostatectomy can significantly improve the symptoms of mild and moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia and have similar clinical efficacy. Compared with TURP, the operation of PVP was safer, the time of indwelling catheterization and hospital stay was shorter, and there was no significant difference between PVP and TURP in the long term effect.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：新疆醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：R699.8

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孔慶軍;許德兵;顧佳云;;鹽酸坦索羅辛對老年良性前列腺增生的作用[J];實用老年醫(yī)學(xué);2012年06期

2 唐飛;陳立軍;李建濤;李學(xué)超;曲楠;劉杰;;經(jīng)尿道選擇性120W綠激光汽化術(shù)治療高齡高危良性前列腺增生癥57例療效分析[J];現(xiàn)代泌尿外科雜志;2012年04期

3 翁博文;祝海;侯四川;;高功率綠激光治療高齡高危前列腺疾病的療效評價[J];現(xiàn)代泌尿外科雜志;2012年06期

4 劉春曉;;傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)不應(yīng)再是前列腺增生腔內(nèi)治療的金標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];現(xiàn)代泌尿外科雜志;2012年03期

5 郭俊生;夏海波;高志明;包國昌;;PVP與TURP治療BPH的臨床療效比較[J];內(nèi)蒙古醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2011年09期

6 高紹青;陳偉光;黃長青;;經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)治療良性前列腺增生癥的臨床體會[J];當(dāng)代醫(yī)學(xué);2011年16期

7 陶宏平;徐小俊;;恥骨后前列腺切除術(shù)臨床應(yīng)用體會(附46例報告)[J];浙江創(chuàng)傷外科;2011年02期

8 李輝華;陳寧;鄧助朋;劉東彪;陳結(jié)能;周曉凡;;改良式恥骨上前列腺切除術(shù)治療前列腺增生256例分析[J];現(xiàn)代醫(yī)院;2011年03期

9 李學(xué)朝;楊江根;張軼庠;方烈奎;;機(jī)器人輔助腹腔鏡下恥骨上前列腺切除術(shù)[J];中國內(nèi)鏡雜志;2010年07期

10 張國銀;姜彥飛;薛浩良;凌建民;;經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切除術(shù)后并發(fā)癥的防治[J];臨床醫(yī)學(xué);2010年03期

，

本文編號：2146489