Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

To perform a systematic review to assess the incidence of reoperation rate for residual/regrowth adenoma after transurethral surgeries for benign prostatic enlargement.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic literature search was performed on November 12, 2023, using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Scopus. We only included randomized studies comparing monopolar (M)/bipolar (B) transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) vs ablation vs enucleation procedures. Incidence of reoperation was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method and reported as risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Evidence synthesis:

Forty-eight studies were included. Six studies compared enucleation vs TURP, 41 ablation vs TURP, and 1 study enucleation vs ablation vs TURP, encompassing 457 patients in enucleation, 2259 in ablation, and 2517 in the TURP group. The pooled incidence of reoperation was 6.2%, 0.7%, 2.3%, and 4.3% after ablation, enucleation, M-TURP, and B-TURP, respectively. Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of reoperation was significantly lower in the enucleation group (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10–0.81, p = 0.02), but the difference accounted only in studies with follow-up between 1 and 3 years (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04–0.85, p = 0.03). The incidence of reoperation was significantly lower in the enucleation compared with the B-TURP group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03–0.77, p = 0.02). Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of reoperation was significantly higher in the ablation group (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.33–2.47, p = 0.0002), but there was no difference in studies with follow-up up to 1 year (odds ratio 1.78 95% CI 0.97–3.29, p = 0.06) longer than 5 years (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.71–5.79, p = 0.19). The incidence of reoperation was significantly higher in the ablation compared with the M-TURP group (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.44–2.54, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions:

In mid-term follow-up, reoperation rate for residual/regrowth adenoma was significantly lower after enucleation, although was significantly higher after ablation compared with TURP.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bushman

. Etiology, epidemiology, and natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am, 2009; 36(4):403–415; doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2009.07.003

Gravas

, Cornu

, Gacci

, et al. EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), Incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO); 2023. Available from: https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/EAU-Guidelines-on-Non-Neurogenic-Male-LUTS-2022.pdf [Last accessed: December 8, 2023 ].

Huang

S-W

, Tsai

C-Y

, Tseng

C-S

, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of new surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ, 2019; 367:l5919; doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5919

Castellani

, Pirola

, Rubilotta

, et al. Greenlight Laser^TM Photovaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Reports Urol, 2021; 13:263–271; doi: 10.2147/RRU.S277482

Rojanasarot

, Cutone

, Durand

, et al. Patients' perspectives on attributes while choosing minimally invasive surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia procedures: Experience from men undergoing water vapor thermal therapy. J Endourol, 2023; 37(5):575–580; doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0607

Cornu

J-N

, Ahyai

, Bachmann

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: An update. Eur Urol, 2015; 67(6):1066–1096; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017

Eredics

, Wachabauer

, Röthlin

, et al. Reoperation rates and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy in a long-term nationwide analysis: Have we improved over a decade?. Urology, 2018; 118:152–157; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.04.032

Roos

, Wennberg

, Malenka

, et al. Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med, 1989; 320(17):1120–1124; doi: 10.1056/NEJM198904273201705

Castellani

, Pirola

, Pacchetti

, et al. State of the art of thulium laser enucleation and vapoenucleation of the prostate: A systematic review. Urology, 2020; 136:19–34; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.022

10.

Saredi

, Pirola

, Pacchetti

, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve for thulium laser enucleation of the prostate with the aid of a simulator tool but without tutoring: Comparison of two surgeons with different levels of endoscopic experience. BMC Urol, 2015; 15:49; doi: 10.1186/s12894-015-0045-2

11.

Seki

, Mochida

, Kinukawa

, et al. Holmium laser enucleation for prostatic adenoma: Analysis of learning curve over the course of 70 consecutive cases. J Urol, 2003; 170(5):1847–1850; doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000092035.16351.9d

12.

Hirasawa

, Kato

, Fujita

. Transurethral enucleation with bipolar for benign prostatic hyperplasia: 2-year outcomes and the learning curve of a single surgeon's experience of 603 consecutive patients. J Endourol, 2017; 31(7):679–685; doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0092

13.

Elzayat

, Elhilali

. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): Long-term results, reoperation rate, and possible impact of the learning curve. Eur Urol, 2007; 52(5):1465–1472; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.074

14.

Elkoushy

, Elshal

, Elhilali

. Reoperation after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: Assessment of risk factors with time to event analysis. J Endourol, 2015; 29(7):797–804; doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0060

15.

Tasc

, Ilbey

, Tugcu

, et al. Transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar resectoscope: Single-surgeon experience and long-term results of after 3589 procedures. Urology, 2011; 78(5):1151–1155; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.072

16.

Aagaard

, Jonler

, Fuglsig

, et al. Total transurethral resection versus minimal transurethral resection of the prostate—A 10-year follow-up study of urinary symptoms, uroflowmetry and residual volume. Br J Urol, 1994; 74(3):333–336; doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1994.tb16622.x

17.

De Nunzio

, Franco

, Lombardo

, et al. Phamacological treatment of persistant lower urinary tract symptoms after a transurethral resection of the prostate is predictive of a new surgical treatment: 10 Years follow-up study. Neurourol Urodyn, 2021; 40(2):722–727; doi: 10.1002/nau.24616

18.

Ruszat

, Seitz

, Wyler

, et al. GreenLight Laser Vaporization of the prostate: Single-center experience and long-term results after 500 procedures. Eur Urol, 2008; 54(4):893–901; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.053

19.

Kim

, Choi

, Bae

, et al. Risk factors for reoperation after photoselective vaporization of the prostate Using a 120 W GreenLight High Performance System Laser for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Photomed Laser Surg, 2016; 34(3):102–107; doi: 10.1089/pho.2015.4050

20.

Bhojani

, Bidair

, Kramolowsky

, et al. Aquablation therapy in large prostates (80–150 ml) for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: Final WATER II 5-Year Clinical Trial Results. J Urol, 2023; 210(1):143–153; doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003483

21.

Gilling

, Barber

, Bidair

, et al. Five-year outcomes for aquablation therapy compared to TURP: Results from a double-blind, randomized trial in men with LUTS due to BPH. Can J Urol, 2022; 29(1):10960–10968

22.

Lu-Yao

, Barry

, Chang

, et al. Transurethral resection of the prostate among medicare beneficiaries in the United States: Time trends and outcomes. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT). Urology, 1994; 44(5):692–699; doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(94)80208-4

23.

Beltrame

, Ferreira

, Lorenzetti

, et al. Bladder function in obstructed men—Does age matter?. Aging Male, 2015; 18(3):143–148; doi: 10.3109/13685538.2015.1025377

24.

Wymer

, Narang

, Slade

, et al. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology, 2023; 171:96–102; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.026

25.

Lourenco

, Armstrong

, N'Dow

, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of effectiveness and cost utility of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement. Health Technol Assess, 2008; 12(35):iii, ix–x, 1–146, 169–515; doi: 10.3310/hta12350

26.

Chughtai

, Rojanasarot

, Neeser

, et al. A comprehensive analysis of clinical, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of key treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia. PLoS One, 2022; 17(4):e0266824; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266824

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.38 MB

0.61 MB

0.28 MB

0.07 MB

0.27 MB

0.07 MB

Reoperation Rate for Residual/Regrowth Adenoma Following Transurethral Interventions for Benign Prostatic Enlargement: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Randomized Studies

Abstract

Objective:

Materials and Methods:

Evidence synthesis:

Conclusions:

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material