• 1. The Second Clinical College of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China;2. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071,China;3. Department of Stomatology, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan 442000, China;;
GUO Yi, Email: guoyius@yahoo.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objective  To objectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic enucleation for prostate (PKEP) vs plasmakinetic resection for prostate (PKRP) in treating benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).
Methods  Such databases as PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMbase, the ISI Web of Knowledge databases, VIP, CNKI, CBM and Wanfang were searched from their establishment to March 2011 for collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PKEP vs PKRP for the treatment of BPH, and the references of those RCTs were also searched by hand. After study selection, assessment and data extraction conducted by two reviewers independently, meta-analyses were performed by using the RevMan 5.1 software. The level of evidence was assessed by using the GRADE system.
Results  Eight studies involving 991 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) safety indicator: compared with the PKRP, PKEP had shorter operation time (SMD=1.07, 95%CI 0.19 to 1.94, P=0.02), less intraoperative bleeding (SMD=2.06, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.69, P lt;0.01), much quantity of resectable prostate (SMD= –0.91, 95%CI –1.33 to –0.48, P lt;0.000 1), less intraoperative perforation (RR=4.48, 95%CI 1.43 to 14.02, P=0.01), shorter catheterization time (SMD=1.98, 95%CI 0.39 to 3.57, P=0.01), shorter bladder irrigation time (SMD=3.49, 95%CI 0.51 to 6.47, P=0.02) and shorter hospital stay (SMD=0.89, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.13, P lt;0.01), but there was no significant difference in total postoperative complications (RR=0.82, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.24, P=0.35); and b) efficacy indicator: compared with the PKRP, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was lower after 3 months, the Quality Of Life (QOL) was higher after 3 months, and the improvement of residual urine volume (RUV) was better after 6 months; but other efficacy indicators had no significant difference between the two groups (P gt;0.05). Based on GRADE system, all the evidence was at level C and weak recommendation (2C).
Conclusion  The current evidence indicates that PKEP is similar to PKRP in the treating effect, but it resects the proliferated prostate more cleanly with shorter operation time, lesser bleeding and more safety than PKRP; for the poor quality of the original studies, a prudent choice is suggested; and more high-quality, large-sample studies are need.

Citation: LI Sheng,ZENG Xiantao,GUO Yi,FANG Zhihui,PAN Zhengbo,YANG Yongbo. Transurethral PlasmaKinetic Enucleation for Prostate versus Transurethral PlasmaKinetic Resection for Prostate in Treating Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Meta-analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011, 11(10): 1172-1183. doi: Copy

  • Previous Article

    Early Enteral Nutrition versus Total Parenteral Nutrition after Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review
  • Next Article

    Sevoflurane in the Anesthesia of Child Short Period Surgery: A Systematic Review