Chaohui Gu1, Naichun Zhou1, Pratik Gurung2, Yiping Kou1, Yang Luo1, Yidi Wang1, Hui Zhou1, Cheng Zhen1, Jinjian Yang1, Fengyan Tian3, Guan Wu4. 1. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China. 2. Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, New York, USA. 3. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China. fccguzh@zzu.edu.cn. 4. Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, New York, USA. Guan_Wu@urmc.rochester.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review studies comparing the overall efficacy and safety of lasers and bipolar technology for the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was completed in February 2018. Studies with comparative data between different lasers and bipolar technologies (enucleation or resection) were included in this review. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0, and subgroup analyses were also performed regarding the type of laser (holmium, thulium, green light and diode). RESULTS: 27 studies with 31 published articles (4382 patients) were selected for the meta-analysis. Compared with bipolar technology, lasers demonstrated shorter catheterization duration (standardized mean difference (SMD): 1.44; 95% CI 1.07-1.81; p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (SMD: 1.16; 95% CI 0.83-1.49; p < 0.001), and a smaller drop in hemoglobin (Hb) level (SMD: 0.86; 95% CI 0.47-1.26; p < 0.001). However, significant heterogeneity was detected in the studies and statistical significance was lost on sub-analyses. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between lasers and bipolar technology in the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at a minimum of 3 months after treatment. Complications, including urethral stricture, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection, re-catheterization and blood transfusion, did not significantly differ between lasers and bipolar technology. CONCLUSION: Early efficacy and safety profiles were comparable between bipolar and laser treatments. Differences were observed in terms of smaller reduction in Hb, shorter catheterization duration and shorter hospital stay in favor of lasers. However, the smaller reduction in Hb, with lasers, did not translate into reduced transfusion requirements. Furthermore, there was significant heterogeneity in the studies and, in subgroup analyses, the differences were not statistically significant.
PURPOSE: To systematically review studies comparing the overall efficacy and safety of lasers and bipolar technology for the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was completed in February 2018. Studies with comparative data between different lasers and bipolar technologies (enucleation or resection) were included in this review. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0, and subgroup analyses were also performed regarding the type of laser (holmium, thulium, green light and diode). RESULTS: 27 studies with 31 published articles (4382 patients) were selected for the meta-analysis. Compared with bipolar technology, lasers demonstrated shorter catheterization duration (standardized mean difference (SMD): 1.44; 95% CI 1.07-1.81; p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (SMD: 1.16; 95% CI 0.83-1.49; p < 0.001), and a smaller drop in hemoglobin (Hb) level (SMD: 0.86; 95% CI 0.47-1.26; p < 0.001). However, significant heterogeneity was detected in the studies and statistical significance was lost on sub-analyses. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between lasers and bipolar technology in the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at a minimum of 3 months after treatment. Complications, including urethral stricture, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection, re-catheterization and blood transfusion, did not significantly differ between lasers and bipolar technology. CONCLUSION: Early efficacy and safety profiles were comparable between bipolar and laser treatments. Differences were observed in terms of smaller reduction in Hb, shorter catheterization duration and shorter hospital stay in favor of lasers. However, the smaller reduction in Hb, with lasers, did not translate into reduced transfusion requirements. Furthermore, there was significant heterogeneity in the studies and, in subgroup analyses, the differences were not statistically significant.
Authors: Christian Gratzke; Alexander Bachmann; Aurelien Descazeaud; Marcus J Drake; Stephan Madersbacher; Charalampos Mamoulakis; Matthias Oelke; Kari A O Tikkinen; Stavros Gravas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim Hashim; Jo Worthington; Paul Abrams; Grace Young; Hilary Taylor; Sian M Noble; Sara T Brookes; Nikki Cotterill; Tobias Page; K Satchi Swami; J Athene Lane Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas R W Herrmann; Stavros Gravas; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Mathias Wolters; Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Ioannis Giannakis Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-10 Impact factor: 4.241