Literature DB >> 22575913

Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using 80-W and 120-W laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis from 2002 to 2012.

Isaac A Thangasamy1, Venu Chalasani, Alexander Bachmann, Henry H Woo.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Photoselective vaporisation (PVP) of the prostate is being used increasingly to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, due to the associated lower morbidity. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was considered to be the treatment with the highest evidence; however, evidence for PVP has dramatically increased recently.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of level 1 evidence studies to determine the effectiveness of PVP versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Outcomes reviewed included perioperative data, complications, and functional outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Biomedical databases from 2002 to 2012 and American Urological Association and European Association of Urology conference proceedings from 2007 to 2011 were searched. Trials were included if they were randomised controlled trials, had PVP as the intervention, and TURP as control. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine trials were identified with 448 patients undergoing PVP (80 W in five trials and 120 W in four trials) and 441 undergoing TURP. Catheterisation time and length of stay were shorter in the PVP group by 1.91 d (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47-2.35; p<0.00001) and 2.13 d (95% CI, 1.78-2.48; p<0.00001), respectively. Operation time was shorter in the TURP group by 19.64 min (95% CI, 9.05-30.23; p=0.0003). Blood transfusion was significantly less likely in the PVP group (risk ratio: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.53; p=0.003). There were no significant differences between PVP and TURP when comparing other complications. Regarding functional outcomes, six studies found no difference between PVP and TURP, two favoured TURP, and one favoured PVP.
CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative outcomes of catheterisation time and length of hospital stay were shorter with PVP, whereas operative time was longer with PVP. Postoperative complications of blood transfusion and clot retention were significantly less likely with PVP; no difference was noted in other complications. Overall, no difference was noted in intermediate-term functional outcomes.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22575913     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  39 in total

1.  [S2e guideline of the German urologists: Instrumental treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia].

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

2.  Absorption of irrigation fluid during XPS™ GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate: results from a prospective breath ethanol monitoring study.

Authors:  Marian S Wettstein; Cédric Poyet; Nico C Grossmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Etienne X Keller; Marko Kozomara; Salome Meyer; Tullio Sulser; Alexander Müller; Thomas Hermanns
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-01-16       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Outcome analysis of transurethral resection versus potassium titanyl phosphate-photo selective vaporization of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia; a randomized controlled trial with 4 years follow up.

Authors:  Bimalesh Purkait; Rahul Janak Sinha; Krishna Swamy A Srinivas; Ankur Bansal; Ashok Kumar Sokhal; Vishwajeet Singh
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-04-18

Review 4.  A Review of Laser Treatment for Symptomatic BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia).

Authors:  Shiva Madhwan Nair; Marie Adrianne Pimentel; Peter John Gilling
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: study outcomes as a function of risk of bias, conflicts of interest, and industrial sponsorship.

Authors:  Marian S Wettstein; Clinsy Pazhepurackel; Aline S Neumann; Dixon T S Woon; Jaime O Herrera-Caceres; Marko Kozomara; Cédric Poyet; Tullio Sulser; Girish S Kulkarni; Thomas Hermanns
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Role of lasers in urology.

Authors:  Stephan M Korn; Nicolai A Hübner; Christian Seitz; Shahrokh F Shariat; Harun Fajkovic
Journal:  Photochem Photobiol Sci       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  [Laservaporization of the prostate: current status of the greenlight and diode laser].

Authors:  M Rieken; A Bachmann; C Gratzke
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 8.  Bipolar plasma vaporization of the prostate: ready to replace GreenLight? A systematic review of randomized control trials.

Authors:  Grégoire Robert; Alexandre de la Taille; Thomas Herrmann
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Urological resident exposure to transurethral surgical options for BPH management in 2012-2013: A pan-Canadian survey.

Authors:  Tal Ben-Zvi; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Roger Valdivieso; Mounsif Azizi; Mounsif Azzizi; Come Tholomier; Marc Bienz; Naeem Bhojani; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  Vaporization of the prostate with 150-w thulium laser: complications with 6-month follow-up.

Authors:  César Vargas; Alejandro García-Larrosa; Santiago Capdevila; Ainhoa Laborda
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-03-31       Impact factor: 2.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.