The benefit of transurethral laser prostatectomy over open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is controversial in aged symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with large volume prostates, and the aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficiency of these two methods. Meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software and the retrieved randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing transurethral laser prostatectomy with OSP were analyzed for the treatment of large volume prostates from 2000 to 2019 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE datasets. Five RCTs assessing transurethral laser prostatectomy versus OSP were considered suitable for this meta-analysis, which included a total of 448 patients, with 232 patients undergoing laser and 216 patients undergoing OSP. Compared with OSP, although transurethral laser prostatectomy required a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) 27.49 mins; 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.54–38.44; P?<?0.00001) and obtained a less resected prostate weight (WMD ??11.72 g; 95% CI ??21.75 to ??1.70; P?=?0.02), patients undergoing laser prostatectomy benefited from significantly less hemoglobin decline (??0.97 g/dL; 95% CI ??1.31 to ??0.64; P?<?0.00001), shorter time of catheterization (WMD ??3.67 days; 95% CI ??5.60 to ??1.75; P?=?0.0002), shorter length of hospital stay (WMD ??4.75 days; 95% CI ??6.57 to ??2.93; P?<?0.00001), and less blood transfusion (odds ratio 0.10; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35; P?=?0.0003). During postoperative follow-up, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR. Both transurethral laser prostatectomy and OSP are safe and effective for large prostates that require prostate resection. Taking into account of less blood loss, shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, and less blood transfusion, transurethral laser prostatectomy may be a better treatment for patients with large prostates.
Neurosurgical Review - Magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) neurosurgery is a new option for medication-resistant Parkinson’s disease (PD), but its safety and... 相似文献
Screening for aorto-iliac stenosis is important in kidney transplant candidates as its presence affects pre-transplantation decisions regarding side of implantation and the need for an additional vascular procedure. Reliable imaging techniques to identify this condition require contrast fluid, which can be harmful in these patients. To guide patient selection for these imaging techniques, we aimed to develop a prediction model for the presence of aorto-iliac stenosis. Patients with contrast-enhanced imaging available in the pre-transplant screening between January 1st, 2000 and December 31st, 2018 were included. A prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression analysis and internally validated using bootstrap resampling. Model performance was assessed with the concordance index and calibration slope. Three hundred and seventy-three patients were included, 90 patients (24.1%) had imaging-proven aorto-iliac stenosis. Our final model included age, smoking, peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease, a previous transplant, intermittent claudication and the presence of a femoral artery murmur. The model yielded excellent discrimination (optimism-corrected concordance index: 0.83) and calibration (optimism-corrected calibration slope: 0.91). In conclusion, this prediction model can guide the development of standardized protocols to decide which patients should receive vascular screening to identify aorto-iliac stenosis. External validation is needed before this model can be implemented in patient care. 相似文献
ObjectivesTo examine length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates for all minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and MI radical nephrectomy (MIRN) performed for localized renal masses ≤7 cm in size (cT1RM) within 12 Michigan urology practices. Both RN and PN are commonly performed in treating cT1RM. Although technically more complex and associated with higher complication rates, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services considers MIPN an outpatient procedure and MIRN is inpatient.MethodsWe collected data for renal surgeries for cT1RM at MUSIC-KIDNEY practices between May 2017–February 2020. Data abstractors recorded clinical, radiographic, pathologic, surgical, and short-term follow-up data into the registry for cT1RM patients.ResultsWithin MUSIC-KIDNEY, 807 patients underwent MI renal surgery at 12 practices. Median LOS for cT1RM patients after MIPN (n = 531, 66%) was 2 days and after MIRN (n = 276, 34%) was also 2 days. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic PN, 171 (32%), 230 (43%), and 130 (24%) stayed ≤1, 2, ≥3 days. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic RN, 81 (29%), 112 (41%), and 83 (30%) stayed ≤1, 2, ≥3 days. No significant difference was observed between MIPN and MIRN on LOS commensurate with outpatient surgery (≤1-day, OR = 0.97, P = 0.87).ConclusionsLess than one-third of patients had a LOS ≤1-day and LOS was comparable for MIPN and MIRN. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should be advised that MIPN is a more complex surgery than MIRN, most patients receiving a MIPN will require a ≥2-day hospital stay and it would be more appropriate to classify MIPN an inpatient procedure with MIRN. 相似文献