Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare different laser systems for the enucleation of benign prostate hyperplasia. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different lasers for prostate enucleation were searched from PubMed, Embase, and CNKI databases. Pairwise and network meta-analyis (NMA) were performed to analyze the outcome regarding surgery time, complications, short-term postvoid residual (PVR), long-term PVR, and short-term international prostate symptom score (IPSS), long-term IPSS, short-term maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), and long-term Qmax. RevMan software was used for paired meta-analysis. Considering the variance uncertainty caused by the different source regions of RCTs and the different primary conditions of surgeons and patients, this study uses Bayesian NMA conducted with ADDIS software to compare different treatment methods indirectly. Node-splitting analysis was used to test inconsistency for closed-loop indirect comparison. Results: Nine studies were included in this study, involving four types of lasers: diode laser, holmium laser, thulium laser, and greenlight laser. In safety paired meta-analysis, holmium laser could bring more complication risk than thulium laser (odds ratio: 2.70, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 1.79-4.00, p < 0.001), and no other significant result was detected. In the efficacy comparisons, holmium laser could offer better postoperative long-term PVR (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.35, 95%CI: -0.62, -0.09, p = 0.011), better postoperative long-term IPSS (SMD: -0.30, 95%CI: -0.57, -0.04, p = 0.011), better postoperative short-term Qmax (SMD: 0.44, 95%CI: 0.17, 0.70, p = 0.001) compared with greenlight laser. According to the results of NMA, greenlight laser may bring more complication risks when applied to prostate enucleation than the other three lasers. Thulium laser may be the recommended laser system for prostate enucleation. Conclusion: Thulium laser may be the recommended laser system since it can bring less complication risk with comparable efficacy. More RCTs are still needed to validate this study.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.