Q Yang1, T J Peters, J L Donovan, T J Wilt, P Abrams. 1. Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital and Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Transurethral prostatic resection is the gold standard surgical treatment in men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction but it has also been related to some risks, such as a relatively high rate of blood transfusion, sexual function problems and so forth. Transurethral prostatic incision is a simpler and less invasive procedure than transurethral prostatic resection. However, it is underused. We systematically reviewed all published randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of transurethral prostatic incision with standard transurethral prostatic resection for bladder outlet obstruction and performed a meta-analysis of the available relevant data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine randomized controlled trials comparing the treatment effectiveness of transurethral prostatic resection and transurethral prostatic incision were identified, evaluated and reviewed in a meta-analysis. The quality of these studies was also appraised. RESULTS: Each treatment achieved clear improvements in subjective and objective outcomes. The improvement in symptoms was equivalent 12 months postoperatively for transurethral prostatic incision and resection. For maximum flow rate transurethral prostatic resection resulted in greater improvement than transurethral prostatic incision. However, transurethral prostatic incision had several advantages over transurethral prostatic resection, such as lower incidence of complications, fewer blood transfusions, decreased risk of retrograde ejaculation, and shorter operative time and hospital stay. Also, the treatments had an equivalent incidence of postoperative catheterization duration and reoperation rate within the first 12 months. Furthermore, patients in each group had a similar subjective view of the treatments received. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 12 months after surgery transurethral prostatic incision has effectiveness that is equivalent to transurethral prostatic resection for treating patients with suspected benign prostatic obstruction who have a relatively small prostate. However, there is little evidence on the relative long-term effectiveness of the 2 treatments 2 to 5 or 10 years after surgery. There is no clear cutoff point for prostate size that leads to good results after transurethral prostatic incision. A large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trial is now required to evaluate comprehensively the effectiveness, impact on quality of life and overall cost of transurethral prostatic incision compared with transurethral prostatic resection.
PURPOSE: Transurethral prostatic resection is the gold standard surgical treatment in men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction but it has also been related to some risks, such as a relatively high rate of blood transfusion, sexual function problems and so forth. Transurethral prostatic incision is a simpler and less invasive procedure than transurethral prostatic resection. However, it is underused. We systematically reviewed all published randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of transurethral prostatic incision with standard transurethral prostatic resection for bladder outlet obstruction and performed a meta-analysis of the available relevant data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine randomized controlled trials comparing the treatment effectiveness of transurethral prostatic resection and transurethral prostatic incision were identified, evaluated and reviewed in a meta-analysis. The quality of these studies was also appraised. RESULTS: Each treatment achieved clear improvements in subjective and objective outcomes. The improvement in symptoms was equivalent 12 months postoperatively for transurethral prostatic incision and resection. For maximum flow rate transurethral prostatic resection resulted in greater improvement than transurethral prostatic incision. However, transurethral prostatic incision had several advantages over transurethral prostatic resection, such as lower incidence of complications, fewer blood transfusions, decreased risk of retrograde ejaculation, and shorter operative time and hospital stay. Also, the treatments had an equivalent incidence of postoperative catheterization duration and reoperation rate within the first 12 months. Furthermore, patients in each group had a similar subjective view of the treatments received. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 12 months after surgery transurethral prostatic incision has effectiveness that is equivalent to transurethral prostatic resection for treating patients with suspected benign prostatic obstruction who have a relatively small prostate. However, there is little evidence on the relative long-term effectiveness of the 2 treatments 2 to 5 or 10 years after surgery. There is no clear cutoff point for prostate size that leads to good results after transurethral prostatic incision. A large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trial is now required to evaluate comprehensively the effectiveness, impact on quality of life and overall cost of transurethral prostatic incision compared with transurethral prostatic resection.
Authors: J Curtis Nickel; Carlos E Méndez-Probst; Thomas F Whelan; Ryan F Paterson; Hassan Razvi Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: T Bschleipfer; T Bach; R Berges; K Dreikorn; C Gratzke; S Madersbacher; M-S Michel; R Muschter; M Oelke; O Reich; C Tschuschke; K Höfner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: R Berges; K Dreikorn; K Höfner; S Madersbacher; M C Michel; R Muschter; M Oelke; O Reich; W Rulf; C Tschuschke; U Tunn Journal: Urologe A Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 0.639