Evidence Hub

Comprehensive efficacy of different prostate resection volumes for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pu-Ze Wang, Jin-Ze Li, Ziqiao Tang, Liang-Ren Liu, Dong Lv

PeerJ, 2026

2,164 participants

Abstract

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is one of the most common urological diseases in middle-aged and elderly men worldwide. The most effective treatment is surgery, and multiple surgical approaches, including traditional electroprostatectomy, laser vaporization, or steam ablation, have already been widely applied in clinical practice. However, few studies summarizing and reporting the comprehensive outcomes of whether different prostate resection volumes affect the efficacy of benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery exist. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving cohort studies and randomized controlled trials to compare the postoperative influence of different residual prostate volumes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to explore the best surgical treatment and minimize the recurrence rate and other complications. A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2,164 patients who underwent prostate surgery were included in our analysis. In summary, compared with patients who had a smaller resected prostate volume, patients with more resected prostate tissue were more likely to have a lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), a lower postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), a higher quality of life (QoL) and maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax), and a decreased risk of bladder neck construction. However, patients with less resected prostate volume had advantages in terms of decreasing catheterization time, hospital stay,…

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: 2,164 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