Objective To evaluate the correlation between hyperuricemia (HUA) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods A total of 666 elderly male patients, who had been admitted to the West China Hospital for routine physical examination in May, 2010, were included in this study. All the following indexes were collected: blood pressure, waistline, medical history, international prostatic symptom score (IPSS), serum uric acid (UA), triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), fasting blood glucose (FBG), 2-hour postprandial blood glucose (PBG-2), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume (PV) measured by ultrasound. Patients with higher level of UA more than 420 μmol/L were included into the HUA group (n=151) while the other patients with normal UA (NUA) were in the NUA group (n=515). Both the metabolic and prostate related indexes in the two groups were compared, and the correlation between HUA and each indexes were analyzed using logistic regression model. Results HUA was significantly associated with abdominal obesity (OR=1.575, 95%CI 1.059 to 2.340), hypertriglyceridemia (OR=2.78, 95%CI 1.877 to 4.118), metabolic syndrome (CDS2007) (OR=1.912, 95%CI 1.267 to 2.885), BPH (OR=1.464, 95%CI 1.465 to 1.635) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) rating (OR=1.782, 95%CI 1.173 to 1.522). Conclusion HUA is correlated with BPH, meanwhile it is highly accompanied with other risk factors of cardioascular diseases. Hereby, comprehensive medical screening should be considered when treating such patients.
Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (TPKEP) and transurethral resection of the plasma (TURP) in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) on the basis of bipolar plasma kinetic technology. Methods Eighty BPH patients who met the included criteria were assigned to two groups according to block balanced randomization, of which, 40 received TPKEP and the others received PKRP. We conducted statistical analysis after recording the clinical outcomes including international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), maximum flow (Qmax), post void residual urine volume (PVR), rates of prostate coated perforation, blood loss in the operation, duration of operation, time of bladder irrigation, duration of indwelling catheter, post-operative adverse effects, etc. Results The two groups were consistent at baseline before operation. The results of the analysis of clinical outcomes showed that, the TPKEP group was superior to the TURP group in prostate coated perforation (2 cases vs. 8 cases), hemoglobin in flushing fluid (index of blood loss, 10.95±5.02 g vs. 15.8±5.86 g), duration of operation (45.13±11.22 min vs. 53.33±8.69 min), time of bladder irrigation (12.58±2.77 h vs. 22.1±2.33 h), duration of indwelling catheter (65.13±10.67 h vs. 84.5±5.67 h), post-operative irritation sign of the bladder and urethra (5 cases vs. 12 cases), and the event of indwelling catheter after removal (0 cases vs. 4 cases), with significant differences; however, the TPKEP group was higher than the TURP group in the incidence of transient uracratia (10 cases vs. 3 cases), with a significant difference. The results of a 6-month follow-up showed that, no significant difference was found between the two groups in IPSS (2.78±1.03 vs. 2.40±1.13), QOL (1.28±0.45 vs. 1.45±0.51), Qmax (21.10±2.68 vs. 20.58±2.57), and PVR (2.82±2.90 vs. 2.18±2.27), respectively (Pgt;0.05). Long-term uracratia, urethrostenosis and secondary bleeding were not observed after operation in both groups. Conclusions TPKEP and TURP were alike in the short-term effectiveness of operation. TPKEP is safer than the TURP, which is regarded as a fairly ideal method for treating symptomatic BPH. However, the long-term effectiveness of TPKEP is yet to be further proved by large-scale randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up.
摘要:目的:探讨良性前列腺增生经尿道前列腺电切术围手术期的护理经验。方法:回顾性分析96例良性前列腺增生患者临床资料。结果:96例患者手术顺利,围手术期经周密的护理,疗效满意,无明显并发症。结论:周密的手术期护理对经尿道前列腺电切术治疗老年良性前列腺增生十分重要。Abstract: Objective: To investigate the perioperative nursing care of transurethral prostatic resection (TURP). Methods: The data of 96 TURP cases were analyzed retrospectively. Results: All the operations were performed successfully, and there were no obvious complications among the patients with precise nursing care. Conclusion: It is very important for precise nursing care to the patients who underwent TURP.
摘要:目的:探讨经尿道前列腺等离子切除术(PKRP)治疗前列腺增生症(BPH)的疗效及安全性。方法:回顾分析采用PKRP治疗的BPH患者,收集患者临床资料,随访12个月,并对手术前后患者国际前列腺症状评分、最大尿流率、生活质量评分进行比较。结果:2006年8月至2008年8月PKRP手术治疗BPH患者共238例,手术时间30～159 min,平均70 min,切除腺体25～127 g,平均54 g。无电切综合征。术后及1年后最大尿流率、国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分三项指标较术前明显改善(Plt;0.05)。结论:PKRP是治疗BPH安全有效的治疗方式。Abstract: Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic energy transurethral resection of the prostate (PKRP) for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). Methods: The data of patients with BPH treated with PKRP were retrospectively analyzed and the International Prostate Symptoms Scales (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax) and Quality of Life (QOL) of patients with 12month followup were compared before and afteroperation and postoperation. Results: A total of 238 patients with BPH were enrolled from June 2006 to June 2008. The duration of the procedure was 70. 3 min (ranged from 30 min to 159 min) and the weight of dissected tissue was 54 g (ranged from 25 g to 127 g). No transurethral resection syndrome occurred. IPSS, Qmax and QOL were improved obviously after operation (Plt;0.05). Conclusion: PKRP is effective and safe.
目的:评价爱普列特（Epristeride）联合高特灵（Hytrin）治疗良性前列腺增生（BPH）的安全性、有效性。方法:48例诊断为BPH的患者，年龄50～80岁，平均（65±9.20）岁。给予高特灵5 mg，1次/每晚，共3月；爱普列特片5 mg，2次/天口服，共6月。观察治疗前后国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、最大尿流率（Qmax）、前列腺体积（V）及膀胱残余尿量（Ru）的变化。结果:45例完成观察，服药3月后，除前列腺体积外，其他指标均有明显改善；6月后，各项指标均明显改善。治疗过程中未发现明显不良反应。结论:爱普列特片与高特灵联用治疗BPH安全、有效。
Objective To evaluate the correlation between benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and metabolic syndrome (MS). Methods Total 666 elderly male patients admitted to West China Hospital for routine physical examination in May, 2010 were included in this study. The related laboratory tests of BPH and MS were taken. The correlation among BPH, lower urinary tract Symptoms (LUTS), prostate volume (PV), MS and its component diseases were analyzed. Results Hypertension was an important risk factor for BPH (OR=1.309, 95%CI 1.033 to 1.661), low HDL-C hyperlipidemia was a risk factor for IPSS scored over 7 points (OR=1.573, 95%CI 0.330 to 0.997), and the score of PV was positively correlated to obesity, hypertension, low HDL-C hyperlipidemia and MS (all Plt;0.05). Conclusion For the patient with BPH, MS and its component diseases mainly exert their effects on PV changes rather than LUTS.
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, Plt;0.01), much quantity of resectable prostate (SMD= –0.91, 95%CI –1.33 to –0.48, Plt;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, Plt;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 (Pgt;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.
Objective To assess the efficacy of finasteride in treating perioperative bleeding in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBase (1984 to 2004), CBM (1980 to 2005), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005) and relevant journals to identify cl inical trials involving finasteride in patients undergoing TURP. We also checked the references in the reports of each included trial. The qual ity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to the methods recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration, and the qual ity of non-RCTs was assessed based on the methods recommended by Jiang-ping Liu, Stroup and Hailey. Two reviewers extracted data independently and data analyses were conducted with The Cochrane Collaboration’ s RevMan 4.2. Result We included 4 RCTs and 1 non-RCT. The qual ity of 3 RCTs was graded C and the other one was graded B. The quality of the non-RCT was relatively high. Meta-analyses showed that with comparable age, international prostate symptom score, prostate specific antigen, preoperative volume of prostate and excision volume between the two groups (Pgt;0.05), the perioperative bleeding volume (WMD –85.44, 95%CI –117.31 to –53.58), the bleeding volume per gram of resected prostate tissue (WMD –3.5, 95%CI –6.34 to –0.58) and hemoglobin reduction (WMD –1.61, 95%CI –1.96 to –1.26) of the finasteride group were significantly smaller than those of the control group. Conclusion The evidence currently available indicates that preoperative use of finasteride may reduce bleeding in patients undergoing TURP.
Objective To evaluate the effect of pretreatment with epristeride on decreasing intraoperative bleeding during transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and to study its mechanism. Methods A total of 60 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing TURP were divided into two groups: 30 patients were pretreated with epristeride 5 mg×2 daily for 7 to 11 days before TURP, and 30 patients did not receive any pretreatment. The operations for the two groups of patients were conducted by the same doctors. The operation time, the weight of resected prostatic tissue, and the volume of irrigating fluid were recorded. Blood loss, bleeding index, and bleeding intensity were calculated. Microvessel density (MVD), vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), and nitric oxide synthase type III (eNOS) expression were measured by the immunohistochemistry SPmethod in prostatic tissue. Results In the epristeride and control groups, the mean blood loss was 179.51±78.29 ml and 237.95±124.38 ml (Plt;0.05); the mean bleeding index was 7.68±3.94 ml/g and 9.73±3.42 ml/g (Plt;0.05); the mean bleeding intensity was 2.43±1.03 ml/min and 3.30±1.50 ml/min (Plt;0.05); the mean value of MVD was 18.80±5.68 and 23.70±4.91 (Plt;0.05); the mean rank of VEGF was 23.48 and 31.77 (Plt;0.05); and the mean rank of eNOS was 22.36 and 31.14 (Plt;0.05), respectively. Conclusion Pretreatment with epristeride decreases intraoperative bleeding during TURP. The preliminary results suggest that angiogenesis in the prostatic tissue is suppressed.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of terazosin, tamsulosin and finasteride for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods We searched the related original studies all over the world, and only included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (CCT). MEDLINE (1966 to Dec. 2004), EMBASE (1984 to Dec. 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004) and four Chinese databases were electronically searched and 10 related journals were handsearched. The studies included in the references of eligible studies were additionally searched. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for eligibility, evaluated the quality and extracted the data from the eligible studies, with confirmation by cross-checking. Divergences of opinion were consulted by a third party. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 4.2 software. Results Twelve original studies involving 2 471 participants met inclusion criteria. Compared with terazosin, tamsulosin could improve international prostatic symptom score, with WMD 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 1.46, P=0.04. There was no statistical difference between terazosin and tamsulosin in improving the average rate of urine flow (WMD 0.23, 95%CI -0.39 to 0.85, P=0.46), the residual urine volume (WMD 0.82, 95%CI -2.92 to 4.57, P=0.67) and in diminishing the volume of prostate (WMD 2.20, 95%CI -3.99 to 8.39, P=0.49). There was no statistical difference between finasteride and tamsulosin in improving the international prostatic symptom score (WMD 0.65, 95%CI -0.45 to 1.75, P=0.25) or the max rate of urine flow (WMD 0.39, 95%CI -0.72 to 1.51, P=0.49). Only two studies compared finasteride with terazosin and had different conclusions. Only one study compared finasteride or terazosin with a combination of these drugs suggested that the combination had higher effective power than finasteride alone but no difference with terazosin alone. Conclusions Although the effectiveness in some aspects is higher in the tamsulosin group, there is not enough evidence to show which one is the best among these three drugs. The combination of finasteride and terazosin does not show more effectiveness than terazosin alone. This review suggests that tamsulosin alone should be used for the treatment of BPH and the combination needs to be identified by better evidence. It is important to improve the quality of original studies.