Evidence Hub

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Functional Outcomes and Complications Following the Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate and Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

Dong Hyuk Kang, Kang Su Cho, Won Sik Ham, Young Deuk Choi, Joo Yong Lee

The World Journal of Men s Health, 2016

19 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (MTURP) and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) in order to provide the most up-to-date and reliable recommendations possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant RCTs were identified from electronic databases for meta-analysis of the surgical outcomes and complications of MTURP and PVP. Meta-analytical comparisons were made using qualitative and quantitative syntheses. The outcome variables are presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In total, 11 articles were included in this comparative analysis of PVP versus MTURP. Most of the recently published studies exhibited low risk in terms of quality assessment. MTURP was superior to PVP regarding operative time; however, with regard to catheterization and hospitalization time, the mean differences were -1.39 (95% CI=-1.83~-0.95, p<0.001) and -2.21 (95% CI=-2.73~-1.69, p<0.001), respectively, in favor of PVP. PVP was superior to MTURP with regard to transfusion rate and clot retention, but no statistically significant differences were found with regard to acute urinary retention and urinary tract infection. The long-term complications of bladder neck contracture and urethral stricture showed no statistically significant differences between PVP and MTURP. Long-term functional outcomes, including the International Prostate Symptom Score…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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