中国医药导报
中國醫藥導報
중국의약도보
CHINA MEDICAL HERALD
2014年
21期
151-153
,共3页
王磊%刘修恒%陈晖%陈志远%翁小东%邱涛%刘林
王磊%劉脩恆%陳暉%陳誌遠%翁小東%邱濤%劉林
왕뢰%류수항%진휘%진지원%옹소동%구도%류림
腺性膀胱炎%钬激光汽化术%电切术%Meta分析
腺性膀胱炎%鈥激光汽化術%電切術%Meta分析
선성방광염%화격광기화술%전절술%Meta분석
Electric incision%Holmium laser%Cystitis glandularis%Meta-analysis
目的:探讨经尿道钬激光汽化术(HI)与电切术(EI)治疗腺性膀胱炎的安全性与有效性。方法计算机检索维普、万方、中国知网、PubMed、Cochrane和EMbase数据库,查找所有比较HI和EI治疗腺性膀胱炎的随机对照试验,检索时间范围从2001年1月1日~2013年12月31日,按纳入和排除标准由2人分别独立进行随机对照试验的筛选、提取和质量评价,应用RevMan5.2进行Meta分析。结果共纳入4个研究,共212例患者。 Meta分析显示,EI治愈率低于HI,差异有高度统计学意义[OR=0.27,95%CI(0.13,0.55),P<0.01];EI有效率低于HI,差异有高度统计学意义[OR=0.20,95%CI(0.08,0.53),P<0.01];EI复发率高于HI,差异有高度统计学意义[OR =4.47,95%CI(1.68,11.85),P<0.01]。结论两种治疗腺性膀胱炎的术式相比,HI在治愈率、有效率、复发率方面均优于EI。
目的:探討經尿道鈥激光汽化術(HI)與電切術(EI)治療腺性膀胱炎的安全性與有效性。方法計算機檢索維普、萬方、中國知網、PubMed、Cochrane和EMbase數據庫,查找所有比較HI和EI治療腺性膀胱炎的隨機對照試驗,檢索時間範圍從2001年1月1日~2013年12月31日,按納入和排除標準由2人分彆獨立進行隨機對照試驗的篩選、提取和質量評價,應用RevMan5.2進行Meta分析。結果共納入4箇研究,共212例患者。 Meta分析顯示,EI治愈率低于HI,差異有高度統計學意義[OR=0.27,95%CI(0.13,0.55),P<0.01];EI有效率低于HI,差異有高度統計學意義[OR=0.20,95%CI(0.08,0.53),P<0.01];EI複髮率高于HI,差異有高度統計學意義[OR =4.47,95%CI(1.68,11.85),P<0.01]。結論兩種治療腺性膀胱炎的術式相比,HI在治愈率、有效率、複髮率方麵均優于EI。
목적:탐토경뇨도화격광기화술(HI)여전절술(EI)치료선성방광염적안전성여유효성。방법계산궤검색유보、만방、중국지망、PubMed、Cochrane화EMbase수거고,사조소유비교HI화EI치료선성방광염적수궤대조시험,검색시간범위종2001년1월1일~2013년12월31일,안납입화배제표준유2인분별독립진행수궤대조시험적사선、제취화질량평개,응용RevMan5.2진행Meta분석。결과공납입4개연구,공212례환자。 Meta분석현시,EI치유솔저우HI,차이유고도통계학의의[OR=0.27,95%CI(0.13,0.55),P<0.01];EI유효솔저우HI,차이유고도통계학의의[OR=0.20,95%CI(0.08,0.53),P<0.01];EI복발솔고우HI,차이유고도통계학의의[OR =4.47,95%CI(1.68,11.85),P<0.01]。결론량충치료선성방광염적술식상비,HI재치유솔、유효솔、복발솔방면균우우EI。
Objective To objectively investigate the efficacy and safety of transurethral holmium laser (HI) vs electric incision (EI) for treatment of cystitis glandularis. Methods The data were searched from VIP, Wanfang, CNKI, PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE. The duration of search was from January 2001 to December 2013 for ran-domized controlled trials about transurethral HI and EI for treatment of cystitis glandularis. The collection, assessment and analysis of data were undertaken by 2 reviewers independently. And the RevMan 5.2 software was used to perform Meta-analyses. Results 4 studies and 212 patients were involved. According to the Meta-analyses, recovery rate of EI was lower than that of HI, the difference was statistically significant [OR =0.27, 95%CI (0.13, 0.55), P<0.01]. The effective rate of EI was lower than that of HI, the difference was statistically significant [OR =2.23, 95%CI (1.14, 4.37), P<0.01]. The recurrence rate of EI was higher than that of HI, the difference was statistically significant [OR =4.47, 95%CI (1.68, 11.85), P<0.01]. Conclusion The current evidence indicates that HI is superior to EI on the recovery rate, effective rate and recurrence rate.