Dataset Information

Comparison of photoselective green light laser vaporisation versus traditional transurethral resection for benign prostate hyperplasia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and prospective studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of green-light laser photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement.

Data sources

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library until October 2018.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies comparing the safety and efficacy of PVP versus TURP for LUTS manifesting through BPH.

Data extraction and synthesis

Perioperative parameters, complications rates and functional outcomes including treatment-related adverse events such as International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), quality of life (QoL) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

Results

22 publications consisting of 2665 patients were analysed. Pooled analysis revealed PVP is associated with reduced blood loss, transfusion, clot retention, TUR syndrome, capsular perforation, catheterisation time and hospitalisation, but also with a higher reintervention rate and longer intervention duration (all p<0.05). No significant difference in IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR or IIEF at 3, 24, 36 or 60 months was identified. There was a significant difference in QoL at 6 months (MD=-0.08; 95% CI -0.13 to -0.02; p=0.007), and IPSS (MD = -0.10; 95% CI -0.15 to -0.05; p<0.0001) and Qmax (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.19; p=0.03) at 12 months, although these differences were not clinically relevant.

Conclusion

PVP is an effective alternative, holding additional safety benefits. PVP has equivalent long-term IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR, IIEF efficacy and fewer complications. The main drawbacks are dysuria and reintervention, although both can be managed with non-invasive techniques. The additional shortcoming is that PVP does not acquire histological tissue examination which removes an opportunity to identify prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Lai S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6707662 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) in surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) potentially offers advantages over transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library up to October 10, 2013 (updated on February 5, 2014). After methodological quality assessment and data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0 and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) 0.9 software. RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 8 RCTs involving 855 patients met the criteria. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) efficacy indicators: there was no significant difference in quality of life between the two groups (P>0.05), but compared with the TURP group, Qmax was better at 3 months and 12 months, PVR was less at 6, 12 months, and IPSS was lower at 12 months in the HoLEP, b) safety indicators: compared with the TURP, HoLEP had less blood transfusion (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.47), but there was no significant difference in early and late postoperative complications (P>0.05), and c) perioperative indicators: HoLEP was associated with longer operation time (WMD 14.19 min, 95% CI 6.30 to 22.08 min), shorter catheterization time (WMD -19.97 h, 95% CI -24.24 to -15.70 h) and hospital stay (WMD -25.25 h, 95% CI -29.81 to -20.68 h). CONCLUSIONS: In conventional meta-analyses, there is no clinically relevant difference in early and late postoperative complications between the two techniques, but HoLEP is preferable due to advantage in the curative effect, less blood transfusion rate, shorter catheterization duration time and hospital stay. However, trial sequential analysis does not allow us to draw any solid conclusion in overall clinical benefit comparison between the two approaches. Further large, well-designed, multicentre/international RCTs with long-term data and the comparison between the two approaches remain open.

Project description:BackgroundAs an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) provides a bloodless, relatively painless relief of lower urinary tract symptoms for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Following a review of the evidence in 2006, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee recommended that a study be conducted to evaluate PVP in Ontario.ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of PVP compared to conventional TURP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Ontario.MethodsA prospective, nonrandomized trial was conducted in 3 Ontario centres. Consenting subjects were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months following surgery. Outcome measures included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual (PVR) volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EuroQol 5 Domain questionnaire, and the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score. Adverse events, resource utilization, and productivity losses were also assessed. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were completed using data from the study.ResultsBetween February 2008 and August 2010, 164 subjects were enrolled in the study (n = 140 for PVP and n = 24 for TURP). Treatment outcomes were similar between the 2 groups at 6 months, with the IPSS decreasing similarly over time (P = 0.718). For other treatment outcomes (Qmax, PSA, HRQOL, SHIM) both treatments provided similar benefit over time; only changes in PVR volume favoured PVP (P = 0.018). The majority of PVP patients were managed on an outpatient basis, with only 7.1% requiring admission (all TURP subjects were inpatients). At 6 months, PVP was less costly than TURP ($3,891 versus $4,863; P = 0.001), with similar quality-adjusted life-years (0.448 versus 0.441; P = 0.658). PVP remained the most cost-effective treatment across all decision-making thresholds, with the technology costing less and providing similar clinical outcomes. Extrapolating the results to a provincial level indicated (based on an estimated case volume of 12,335 TURPs) that there is an opportunity to reallocate just over $14 million (Cdn), primarily related to the reduced need for hospital admission.LimitationsThis study was nonrandomized, and the results should be interpreted with some caution, despite generally similar baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Recruiting individuals to the TURP arm was a challenge, resulting in a size imbalance between treatment arms.ConclusionsBased on this analysis, PVP appears to be a cost-effective alternative to TURP, providing similar clinical benefit at a lower cost to the health system.

Project description:BackgroundTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was considered the golden standard to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for decades. However, TURP was associated with low efficiency to alleviate the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and a significantly higher risk of bladder neck contracture (BNC) for patients with small-volume BPH. Our study aims to compare the therapeutic effect of a transurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) with TURP for patients with small-volume BPH (<30 mL).MethodsIn this study, 101 small-volume BPH patients were randomly divided into two groups (TUSP and TURP group). The patient's baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. The follow-up was done at six months, one year and two years after surgical treatment.ResultsNo significant differences were observed between the two groups for the baseline characteristics, including age, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, concurrent disease, post-void residual (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), international prostate symptoms score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL) score. The operative time and hemoglobin decrease were significantly lower in the TUSP group compared to the TURP group. However, no significant differences were observed between both groups for catheterization time, postoperative hospital stay, and incidence of transurethral resection syndrome (TURS). However, of the late complications, the incidence of BNC in the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group. No significant differences were found between both groups for other complications, including postoperative bleeding, micturition urgency, micturition frequency, micturition pain, urinary tract infection, recatheterization, transient incontinence, and continuous incontinence. Follow-up results showed that the IPSS of the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group, while the Qmax of the TUSP group was significantly higher than the TURP group.ConclusionsThis study shows that TUSP may be an efficient and safe treatment for small-volume BPH (<30 mL) with a lower incidence of postoperative BNC and better longtime clinical outcomes than TURP. It suggested that TUSP could be an ideal treatment choice for small-volume BPH.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of patient reported and functional outcomes. DESIGN:Randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial. SETTING:Urology and radiology departments of a Swiss tertiary care centre. PARTICIPANTS:103 patients aged ?40 years with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomised between 11 February 2014 and 24 May 2017; 48 and 51 patients reached the primary endpoint 12 weeks after PAE and TURP, respectively. INTERVENTIONS:PAE performed with 250-400 ?m microspheres under local anaesthesia versus monopolar TURP performed under spinal or general anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Primary outcome was change in international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 weeks after surgery; a difference of less than 3 points between treatments was defined as non-inferiority for PAE and tested with a one sided t test. Secondary outcomes included further questionnaires, functional measures, magnetic resonance imaging findings, and adverse events; changes from baseline to 12 weeks were compared between treatments with two sided tests for superiority. RESULTS:Mean reduction in IPSS from baseline to 12 weeks was -9.23 points after PAE and -10.77 points after TURP. Although the difference was less than 3 points (1.54 points in favour of TURP (95% confidence interval -1.45 to 4.52)), non-inferiority of PAE could not be shown (P=0.17). None of the patient reported secondary outcomes differed significantly between treatments when tested for superiority; IPSS also did not differ significantly (P=0.31). At 12 weeks, PAE was less effective than TURP regarding changes in maximum rate of urinary flow (5.19 v 15.34 mL/s; difference 10.15 (95% confidence interval -14.67 to -5.63); P<0.001), postvoid residual urine (-86.36 v -199.98 mL; 113.62 (39.25 to 187.98); P=0.003), prostate volume (-12.17 v -30.27 mL; 18.11 (10.11 to 26.10); P<0.001), and desobstructive effectiveness according to pressure flow studies (56% v 93% shift towards less obstructive category; P=0.003). Fewer adverse events occurred after PAE than after TURP (36 v 70 events; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:The improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia seen 12 weeks after PAE is close to that after TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP but has disadvantages regarding functional outcomes, which should be considered when selecting patients. Further comparative study findings, including longer follow-up, should be evaluated before PAE can be considered as a routine treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054013.