当前位置: X-MOL 学术World J. Urol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comparison between cold knife and laser urethrotomy for urethral stricture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.
World Journal of Urology ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2019-03-22 , DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02729-3
Xiaonan Zheng 1 , Xin Han 2 , Dehong Cao 1 , Hang Xu 2 , Lu Yang 1 , Jianzhong Ai 1 , Qiang Wei 1
Affiliation  

BACKGROUND Previous study compared limited number of parameters post the treatment of cold knife and laser urethrotomy for urethral stricture and controversy about the superiority of those two techniques still remains. This study aims to update the evidence and provide better clinical guidance. METHOD We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, ClinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles comparing cold knife and laser urethrotomy for urethral stricture. Parameters including maximum urinary flow (Qmax), recurrence, reoperation, complications, operation time, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score were compared using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS Seven articles involving 453 patients were eventually included. The cold-knife group had better 6-month Qmax (MD - 0.95, 95% CI - 1.49 to - 0.41) and similar 3-month and 12-month Qmax compared with the laser group. No significance was observed regarding the comparison of recurrence rate. The laser group had lower risk of bleeding (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.43), lower rate of reoperation (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.81) and longer operation time (MD 4.09, 95% CI 3.35-4.82). There was no significant difference in terms of other complications and VAS pain score. CONCLUSION Cold knife and laser urethrotomy had similar efficacy regarding short-term and long-term recurrence rate and Qmax, except that the cold-knife group had slightly better 6-month Qmax. However, the laser group had less risk of bleeding and lower rate of reoperation but also longer operation time.

中文翻译:

冷刀和激光尿道切开术治疗尿道狭窄的比较:比较试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

背景技术先前的研究比较了冷刀和激光尿道切开术治疗尿道狭窄后的参数数量有限,关于这两种技术的优越性仍然存在争议。这项研究旨在更新证据并提供更好的临床指导。方法我们系统地搜索了Pubmed,Embase,ClinicalTrial.gov和Cochrane图书馆对照试验中心登记册,以比较冷刀和激光尿道切开术治疗尿道狭窄的文章。使用RevMan 5.3比较了最大尿流(Qmax),复发,再次手术,并发症,手术时间和视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分等参数。结果最终纳入了涉及453名患者的7篇文章。冷刀组的6个月Qmax更好(MD-0.95,95%CI-1.49至-0。41)和与激光组相比相似的3个月和12个月Qmax。关于复发率的比较,没有观察到显着性。激光组的出血风险较低(OR 0.08,95%CI 0.01-0.43),再手术率较低(OR 0.39,95%CI 0.19-0.81),手术时间较长(MD 4.09,95%CI 3.35-4.82) 。其他并发症和VAS疼痛评分无明显差异。结论冷刀和激光尿道切开术在短期和长期复发率以及Qmax方面具有相似的疗效,但冷刀组的6个月Qmax稍好。但是,激光组的出血风险较低,再次手术率较低,但手术时间较长。激光组的出血风险较低(OR 0.08,95%CI 0.01-0.43),再手术率较低(OR 0.39,95%CI 0.19-0.81),手术时间较长(MD 4.09,95%CI 3.35-4.82) 。其他并发症和VAS疼痛评分无明显差异。结论冷刀和激光尿道切开术在短期和长期复发率以及Qmax方面具有相似的疗效,但冷刀组的6个月Qmax稍好。但是,激光组的出血风险较低,再次手术率较低,但手术时间较长。激光组的出血风险较低(OR 0.08,95%CI 0.01-0.43),再手术率较低(OR 0.39,95%CI 0.19-0.81),手术时间较长(MD 4.09,95%CI 3.35-4.82) 。其他并发症和VAS疼痛评分无明显差异。结论冷刀和激光尿道切开术在短期和长期复发率以及Qmax方面具有相似的疗效,除了冷刀组的6个月Qmax稍好。但是,激光组的出血风险较低,再次手术率较低,但手术时间较长。结论冷刀和激光尿道切开术在短期和长期复发率以及Qmax方面具有相似的疗效,但冷刀组的6个月Qmax稍好。但是,激光组的出血风险较低,再次手术率较低,但手术时间较长。结论冷刀和激光尿道切开术在短期和长期复发率以及Qmax方面具有相似的疗效,但冷刀组的6个月Qmax稍好。但是,激光组的出血风险较低,再次手术率较低,但手术时间较长。
更新日期:2019-11-01
down
wechat
bug