Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Tolerability Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Random-Effects Network Meta-Analysis

Brian Ng Hung Shin, Rebekah Maksoud, Samuel X. Tan, Handoo Rhee, Hyun Jun Park, E. Chung

The World Journal of Men's Health, 2025

21,078 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Purpose Minimally invasive surgical treatments (MIST) provide emerging alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This network meta-analysis provides a comparative analysis of clinical efficacy and tolerability for individual MIST versus TURP in BPH. Materials and Methods A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 31 August 2023. Eligible studies compared post-treatment change scores or relative risks between ≥2 distinct BPH interventions for International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual urine, Sexual Health Inventory in Men (SHIM) and Men’s Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ) scores, and re-intervention rate. Pairwise comparisons were synthesized through a random-effects frequentist model to determine aggregate estimates for treatment-outcome associations. Results Of 4,416 screened articles, 59 studies were included for quantitative analysis, comprising 21,078 patients across 47 unique cohorts. Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) and Aquablation appeared to induce similar reductions in IPSS to TURP; however, there was insufficient data to evaluate the tolerability of PAE or Aquablation. Water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) were less efficacious at reducing IPSS than TURP but exhibited greater preservation of SHIM and MSHQ scores. TURP…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 21,078 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free