Evidence Hub

The efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift as a minimally invasive therapeutic modality to treat lower urinary tract symptoms while maintaining sexual function in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

S. Warli, M. Ikram, Raja Gerald Sarumpaet, Z. Tala, Ignatius Ivan Putrantyo

Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia, 2024

378 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) is prevalent among elderly men, necessitating focused attention. The Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) procedure, a minimally invasive intervention, has emerged as a promising option for BPH management. It has shown remarkable results in ameliorating Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), enhancing quality of life, and preserving sexual function. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PUL in BPH patients.

METHODS

Key databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, Google Scholar) were systematically searched using pertinent terms related to PUL and BPH. Following the PRISMA checklist, we considered only Randomized Controlled Trials studies (RCTs) from 2013 to 2023. The assessment focused on LUTS, Quality of Life, sexual function, and Adverse Events, within three months. Follow-up post-treatment mean values compared with controls (Sham) and the improvement from baseline to post-treatment follow-up duration were considered. Statistical analysis and risk of bias evaluation were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1, presenting results as difference of mean values (MD) and Risk Ratios (RR).

RESULTS

A meta-analysis with a Random Effects Model of 7 RCTs involving 378 confirmed BPH patients demonstrated significant improvements in the PUL arm including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (MD 5.51, p < 0.0001), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) (MD 2.13, p = 0.0001), BPH Impact Index (BPHII) (MD 2.14, p =…

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: 378 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