Yucong Zhang1,2, Penghui Yuan1,2, Delin Ma3, Xintao Gao1,2, Chao Wei1,2, Zhuo Liu1,2, Rui Li1,2, Shaogang Wang1,2, Jihong Liu1,2, Xiaming Liu4,5. 1. Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. 2. Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. 4. Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. Xmliu77@hust.edu.cn. 5. Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Xmliu77@hust.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted through a systematic search before 1 September 2018. All included publications were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efficacy was evaluated based on International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), and quality of life (QoL). Perioperative data and complications postoperatively were also assessed. The quality assessment of included studies and results was performed by using the Cochrane System and GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) System. RESULTS: Thirty-one publications involving 26 RCTs with 3283 patients were assessed in this review. The differences between enucleation and resection in IPSS, Qmax, and QoL at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperative were not significant. At 12 months postoperatively, IPSS and Qmax in the enucleation group were significantly better than those in the resection group. The results also suggested a benefit of enucleation over resection in hospital stay, hemoglobin loss, serum sodium decrease, blood transfusion rate, grade II, grade III complications, and early complications. However, resection exhibited a better operative time. CONCLUSION: Compared with resection, enucleation showed better efficacy and safety postoperatively with less hematological changes and severe complications, except for longer operative time.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted through a systematic search before 1 September 2018. All included publications were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efficacy was evaluated based on International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), and quality of life (QoL). Perioperative data and complications postoperatively were also assessed. The quality assessment of included studies and results was performed by using the Cochrane System and GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) System. RESULTS: Thirty-one publications involving 26 RCTs with 3283 patients were assessed in this review. The differences between enucleation and resection in IPSS, Qmax, and QoL at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperative were not significant. At 12 months postoperatively, IPSS and Qmax in the enucleation group were significantly better than those in the resection group. The results also suggested a benefit of enucleation over resection in hospital stay, hemoglobin loss, serum sodium decrease, blood transfusion rate, grade II, grade III complications, and early complications. However, resection exhibited a better operative time. CONCLUSION: Compared with resection, enucleation showed better efficacy and safety postoperatively with less hematological changes and severe complications, except for longer operative time.
Authors: Howard Balshem; Mark Helfand; Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan Norris; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Iason Kyriazis; Piotr P Świniarski; Stephan Jutzi; Mathias Wolters; Christopher Netsch; Martin Burchardt; Evangelos Liatsikos; Shujie Xia; Thorsten Bach; Andreas J Gross; Thomas R W Herrmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-03-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Mischel G Neill; Peter J Gilling; Katie M Kennett; Christopher M Frampton; Andre M Westenberg; Mark R Fraundorfer; Liam C Wilson Journal: Urology Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Oliver Reich; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Bachmann; Michael Seitz; Boris Schlenker; Peter Hermanek; Nicholas Lack; Christian G Stief Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Stephanie Huckele; Patrick Honeck; Peter Alken; Thomas Knoll; Maurice Stephan Michel; Axel Häcker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-06-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Henry S S Ho; Sidney K H Yip; Kok B Lim; Stephanie Fook; Keong T Foo; Christopher W S Cheng Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mohammed Abdulwahab Al-Radhi; Lo Ka Lun; Mohammed Safi; Abdullah Al-Danakh; Khaled M Al-Kohlany; Amr Al-Najar; Hesham Al-Sharani; Mahmoud Al-Azab; XianCheng Li; Chao Wang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Giacomo Maria Pirola; Daniele Castellani; Martina Maggi; Ee Jean Lim; Vinson Wai Shun Chan; Angelo Naselli; Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh; Vineet Gauhar Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Jens Köllermann; Benedikt Hoeh; Daniel Ruppel; Kevin Smith; Henning Reis; Mike Wenzel; Felix Preisser; Marina Kosiba; Philipp Mandel; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Andreas Becker; Felix K H Chun; Peter Wild; Luis A Kluth Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.535