Porto Breno C, Benedicto Bianca C, Constantinou Beatriz T, Hobaica Nathalie C, Passerotti Carlo C, de Lima Richard Dobrucki, Sanderberg Rodrigo A S, Artifon Everson L A, Otoch Jose P, da Cruz Jose A S
Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
Surgical Division, Ninth of July University, São Paulo, Brazil.
Transl Androl Urol. 2025 May 30;14(5):1261-1272. doi: 10.21037/tau-2025-111. Epub 2025 May 22.
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) stands as a primary surgical intervention for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), although laser techniques, notably photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP), are gaining traction. Previous studies have already assessed the efficacy of TURP and PVP, although with small prostates (<70 mL). Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of PVP compared to TURP in the male BPH population with large prostates (≥70 mL).
A systematic review was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Studies comparing PVP to TURP in male BPH patients were included. Our primary outcome was the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Secondary outcomes encompassed maximum urinary flow rate (Qmáx), postvoid residual volume (Vres), operative time, catheterization time, postoperative hospital stay and complications. To assess the risk of bias we used Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for non-randomized studies, and risk of bias 2 tool (Cochrane) (RoB2) for the randomized.
Three articles encompassing 159 patients each in the PVP and TURP groups were included. Our analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in IPSS score between PVP and TURP [mean difference (MD) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 3.64; P=0.14; I=85%]. TURP demonstrated a reduced operative time (MD 30.35; 95% CI: 11.26 to 49.44; P=0.002; I=96%), whereas PVP exhibited shorter catheterization time (MD -2.22; 95% CI: -2.44 to -1.99; P<0.001; I=1%) and postoperative hospital stay (MD -2.20; 95% CI: -2.69 to -1.72; P<0.001; I=75%). No significant differences were observed in other outcomes assessed.
This meta-analysis suggests that PVP is non-inferior to TURP concerning IPSS, Qmáx, Vres, and complications, albeit with a longer operative time. PVP showed a reduced catheterization and postoperative hospital stay.
经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)是良性前列腺增生(BPH)的主要外科手术干预方式,尽管激光技术,尤其是前列腺选择性光汽化术(PVP)越来越受到关注。先前的研究已经评估了TURP和PVP的疗效,不过研究对象是小前列腺(<70 mL)。因此,本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估在大前列腺(≥70 mL)的男性BPH患者中,PVP与TURP相比的疗效。
对MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus、科学网和谷歌学术进行了系统评价。纳入比较男性BPH患者中PVP与TURP的研究。我们的主要结局是国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)。次要结局包括最大尿流率(Qmáx)、排尿后残余尿量(Vres)、手术时间、导尿时间、术后住院时间和并发症。为评估偏倚风险,我们对非随机研究使用了干预性非随机研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I),对随机研究使用了偏倚风险2工具(Cochrane)(RoB2)。
纳入了3篇文章,PVP组和TURP组各有159例患者。我们的分析显示,PVP和TURP之间的IPSS评分无统计学显著差异[平均差(MD)1.56;95%置信区间(CI):0.52至3.64;P=0.14;I=85%]。TURP的手术时间缩短(MD 30.35;95% CI:11.26至49.44;P=0.002;I=96%),而PVP的导尿时间(MD -2.22;95% CI:-2.44至-1.99;P<0.001;I=1%)和术后住院时间更短(MD -2.20;95% CI:-2.69至-1.72;P<0.001;I=75%)。在评估的其他结局中未观察到显著差异。
这项荟萃分析表明,在IPSS、Qmáx、Vres和并发症方面,PVP不劣于TURP,尽管手术时间较长。PVP的导尿时间和术后住院时间缩短。