Cargando…
Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis
OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and simple prostatectomy for large prostate burdens, as discussion and debate continue about the optimal surgical intervention for this common pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systemati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4767783/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26966594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.10.001 |
_version_ | 1782417842517311488 |
---|---|
author | Jones, Patrick Alzweri, Laith Rai, Bhavan Prasad Somani, Bhaskar K. Bates, Chris Aboumarzouk, Omar M. |
author_facet | Jones, Patrick Alzweri, Laith Rai, Bhavan Prasad Somani, Bhaskar K. Bates, Chris Aboumarzouk, Omar M. |
author_sort | Jones, Patrick |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and simple prostatectomy for large prostate burdens, as discussion and debate continue about the optimal surgical intervention for this common pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for studies comparing HoLEP with simple prostatectomy [open (OP), robot-assisted, laparoscopic] using a sensitive strategy and in accordance with Cochrane collaboration guidelines. Primary parameters of interest were objective measurements including maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR), and subjective outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes of interest included volume of tissue retrieved, catheterisation time, hospital stay, blood loss and serum sodium decrease. Data on baseline characteristics and complications were also collected. Where possible, comparable data were combined and meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In all, 310 articles were identified and after screening abstracts (114) and full manuscripts (14), three randomised studies (263 patients) were included, which met our pre-defined inclusion criteria. All these compared HoLEP with OP. The mean transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume was 113.9 mL in the HoLEP group and 119.4 mL in the OP group. There was no statistically significant difference in Q(max), PVR, IPSS and QoL at 12 and 24 months between the two interventions. OP was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.01) and greater tissue retrieved (P < 0.001). However, with HoLEP there was significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), patients had a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.03), and were catheterised for significantly fewer hours (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the total number of complications recorded amongst HoLEP and OP (P = 0.80). CONCLUSION: The results of the meta-analysis have shown that HoLEP and OP possess similar overall efficacy profiles for both objective and subjective disease status outcome measures. This review shows these improvements persist to at least the 24 month follow-up point. Further randomised studies are warranted to fully determine the optimal surgical intervention for large prostate burdens. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4767783 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47677832016-03-10 Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis Jones, Patrick Alzweri, Laith Rai, Bhavan Prasad Somani, Bhaskar K. Bates, Chris Aboumarzouk, Omar M. Arab J Urol Prostatic Disorders Review OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and simple prostatectomy for large prostate burdens, as discussion and debate continue about the optimal surgical intervention for this common pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for studies comparing HoLEP with simple prostatectomy [open (OP), robot-assisted, laparoscopic] using a sensitive strategy and in accordance with Cochrane collaboration guidelines. Primary parameters of interest were objective measurements including maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR), and subjective outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes of interest included volume of tissue retrieved, catheterisation time, hospital stay, blood loss and serum sodium decrease. Data on baseline characteristics and complications were also collected. Where possible, comparable data were combined and meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In all, 310 articles were identified and after screening abstracts (114) and full manuscripts (14), three randomised studies (263 patients) were included, which met our pre-defined inclusion criteria. All these compared HoLEP with OP. The mean transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume was 113.9 mL in the HoLEP group and 119.4 mL in the OP group. There was no statistically significant difference in Q(max), PVR, IPSS and QoL at 12 and 24 months between the two interventions. OP was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.01) and greater tissue retrieved (P < 0.001). However, with HoLEP there was significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), patients had a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.03), and were catheterised for significantly fewer hours (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the total number of complications recorded amongst HoLEP and OP (P = 0.80). CONCLUSION: The results of the meta-analysis have shown that HoLEP and OP possess similar overall efficacy profiles for both objective and subjective disease status outcome measures. This review shows these improvements persist to at least the 24 month follow-up point. Further randomised studies are warranted to fully determine the optimal surgical intervention for large prostate burdens. Elsevier 2016-03 2015-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4767783/ /pubmed/26966594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.10.001 Text en © 2015 Arab Association of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Prostatic Disorders Review Jones, Patrick Alzweri, Laith Rai, Bhavan Prasad Somani, Bhaskar K. Bates, Chris Aboumarzouk, Omar M. Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Prostatic Disorders Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4767783/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26966594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.10.001 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jonespatrick holmiumlaserenucleationversussimpleprostatectomyfortreatinglargeprostatesresultsofasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT alzwerilaith holmiumlaserenucleationversussimpleprostatectomyfortreatinglargeprostatesresultsofasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT raibhavanprasad holmiumlaserenucleationversussimpleprostatectomyfortreatinglargeprostatesresultsofasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT somanibhaskark holmiumlaserenucleationversussimpleprostatectomyfortreatinglargeprostatesresultsofasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bateschris holmiumlaserenucleationversussimpleprostatectomyfortreatinglargeprostatesresultsofasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT aboumarzoukomarm holmiumlaserenucleationversussimpleprostatectomyfortreatinglargeprostatesresultsofasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |