Evidence Hub

Ejaculatory-sparing transurethral prostatectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

M. Ramez, A. E. Abolazm, A. El-Nahas

Sexual Medicine Reviews, 2024

274 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a prevalent urologic condition leading to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Transurethral prostatectomy has been a cornerstone for surgical management of LUTS due to BPH. A growing interest has recently emerged to develop a surgical approach that can decrease the effect on sexual and ejaculatory functions while maintaining its efficacy in treating LUTS.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess patient-reported outcomes of ejaculatory-sparing transurethral prostatectomy in management of BPH.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched systematically until July 6, 2024. Randomized controlled trials reporting data on ejaculatory-sparing techniques during transurethral prostatectomy were included. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used for quality assessment. The meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager software. Numerical data were analyzed by standardized mean difference (SMD), while the risk ratio was used for analysis of categorical data. Fixed or random effects models were used according to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were included with 274 patients. No statistically significant differences were found between groups for International Prostate Symptom Score (SMD, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.59; P = .79), Qmax (SMD, -0.53; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.06; P = .08), and International Index of Erectile Function (SMD, 0.89; 95%…

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: 274 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