Alternative approaches to endoscopic ablation for benign enlargement of the prostate: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Open Access
- 30 June 2008
- Vol. 337 (7660), a449
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39575.517674.be
Abstract
To compare the effectiveness and risk profile of newer methods for endoscopic ablation of the prostate against the current standard of transurethral resection. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic and paper records in subject area up to March 2006. We searched for randomised controlled trials of endoscopic ablative interventions that included transurethral resection of prostate as one of the treatment arms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Meta-analyses of prespecified outcomes were done using fixed and random effects models and reported using relative risk or weighted mean difference. We identified 45 randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria and reporting on 3970 participants. The reports were of moderate to poor quality, with small sample sizes. None of the newer technologies resulted in significantly greater improvement in symptoms than transurethral resection at 12 months, although a trend suggested a better outcome with holmium laser enucleation (random effects weighted mean difference -0.82, 95% confidence interval 1.76 to 0.12) and worse outcome with laser vaporisation (1.49, -0.40 to 3.39). Improvements in secondary measures, such as peak urine flow rate, were consistent with change in symptoms. Blood transfusion rates were higher for transurethral resection than for the newer methods (4.8% v 0.7%) and men undergoing laser vaporisation or diathermy vaporisation were more likely to experience urinary retention (6.7% v 2.3% and 3.6% v 1.1%). Hospital stay was up to one day shorter for the newer technologies. Although men undergoing more modern methods of removing benign prostatic enlargement have similar outcomes to standard transurethral resection of prostate along with fewer requirements for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stay, the quality of current evidence is poor. The lack of any clearly more effective procedure suggests that transurethral resection should remain the standard approach.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance dataJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- Early Catheter Removal following Transurethral Prostatectomy: A Study of 431 PatientsMedical Principles and Practice, 2006
- Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?Evidence-Based Nursing, 2001
- Publication bias in meta-analysis its causes and consequencesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000
- The Delphi ListJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1998
- The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventionsJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1998
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995
- Transurethral Prostatectomy: Immediate and Postoperative Complications. A Cooperative Study of 13 Participating Institutions Evaluating 3,885 PatientsJournal of Urology, 1989
- Towards a reduction in publication bias.BMJ, 1987