File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.5173/ceju.2022.174
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85146982893
- WOS: WOS:001010062700003
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Complications and functional outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled studies
Title | Complications and functional outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled studies |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Benign prostate enlargement Enucleation Holmium Laser Thulium |
Issue Date | 2022 |
Citation | Central European Journal of Urology, 2022, v. 75, n. 4, p. 357-386 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Introduction There are several endoscopic enucleation procedures (EEP) using different energy sources: holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP), Greenlight® (GreenVEP) and diode (DiLEP) lasers, and plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP). The comparative outcomes among these EEPs are unclear. We aimed to compare the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes, complications and functional outcomes among different EEPs. Material and methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Only randomisedcontrolled trials (RCT) comparing EEPs were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. Results The search identified 1153 articles and 12 RCTs were included. The number of RCTs for each comparison was, HoLEP vs ThuLEP; n = 3, HoLEP vs PKEP; n = 3, PKEP vs DiLEP; n = 3, HoLEP vs GreenVEP; n = 1, HoLEP vs DiLEP; n = 1, ThuLEP vs PKEP; n = 1. Operative time was shorter and blood loss was lower with ThuLEP compared with HoLEP, whereas operative time was shorter for HoLEP compared with PKEP. Blood loss was lower with HoLEP and DiLEP compared with PKEP. There were no Clavien-Dindo IV–V complications, and the incidence of Clavien-Dindo I complications was lower with ThuLEP compared with HoLEP. No significant differences were detected among EEPs regarding urinary retention, stress urinary incontinence, bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture. Lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and higher quality of life (QoL) scores were in favour of ThuLEP compared with HoLEP at 1 month. Conclusions EEP improves symptoms and uroflowmetry parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. ThuLEP was associated with shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and lower incidence of low-grade complications compared with HoLEP. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/328850 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.420 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Pang, Karl H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ortner, Gernot | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yuan, Yuhong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Biyani, Chandra Shekhar | - |
dc.contributor.author | Tokas, Theodoros | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-22T06:24:36Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-07-22T06:24:36Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Central European Journal of Urology, 2022, v. 75, n. 4, p. 357-386 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2080-4806 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/328850 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction There are several endoscopic enucleation procedures (EEP) using different energy sources: holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP), Greenlight® (GreenVEP) and diode (DiLEP) lasers, and plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP). The comparative outcomes among these EEPs are unclear. We aimed to compare the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes, complications and functional outcomes among different EEPs. Material and methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Only randomisedcontrolled trials (RCT) comparing EEPs were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. Results The search identified 1153 articles and 12 RCTs were included. The number of RCTs for each comparison was, HoLEP vs ThuLEP; n = 3, HoLEP vs PKEP; n = 3, PKEP vs DiLEP; n = 3, HoLEP vs GreenVEP; n = 1, HoLEP vs DiLEP; n = 1, ThuLEP vs PKEP; n = 1. Operative time was shorter and blood loss was lower with ThuLEP compared with HoLEP, whereas operative time was shorter for HoLEP compared with PKEP. Blood loss was lower with HoLEP and DiLEP compared with PKEP. There were no Clavien-Dindo IV–V complications, and the incidence of Clavien-Dindo I complications was lower with ThuLEP compared with HoLEP. No significant differences were detected among EEPs regarding urinary retention, stress urinary incontinence, bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture. Lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and higher quality of life (QoL) scores were in favour of ThuLEP compared with HoLEP at 1 month. Conclusions EEP improves symptoms and uroflowmetry parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. ThuLEP was associated with shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and lower incidence of low-grade complications compared with HoLEP. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Central European Journal of Urology | - |
dc.subject | Benign prostate enlargement | - |
dc.subject | Enucleation | - |
dc.subject | Holmium | - |
dc.subject | Laser | - |
dc.subject | Thulium | - |
dc.title | Complications and functional outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled studies | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.5173/ceju.2022.174 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85146982893 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 75 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 357 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 386 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2080-4873 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:001010062700003 | - |