Photoselective green-light laser vaporisation vs. TURP for BPH: meta-analysis

This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporisation (PVP) vs. transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE). The database search, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Efficacy (primary outcomes: maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), postvoid residual urine (PVR) and quality of life (QoL); secondary outcomes: operative time, hospital time and catheter removal time) and safety (complications, such as transfusion and capsular perforation) were explored by using Review Manager 5.0. Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case-controlled studies of 1398 patients met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of the extractable data showed that there were no differences in IPSS, Q(max), QoL or PVR between PVP and TURP (mean difference (MD): prostate sizes <70 ml, Q(max) at 24 months, MD=0.01, P=0.97; IPSS at 12 months, MD=0.18, P=0.64; QoL at 12 months, MD=-0.00, P=0.96; PVR at 12 months, MD=0.52, P=0.43; prostate sizes >70 ml, Q(max) at 6 months, MD=-3.46, P=0.33; IPSS at 6 months, MD=3.11, P=0.36; PVR at 6 months, MD=25.50, P=0.39). PVP was associated with a shorter hospital time and catheter removal time than TURP, whereas PVP resulted in a longer operative time than TURP. For prostate sizes <70 ml, there were fewer transfusions, capsular perforations, incidences of TUR syndrome and clot retentions following PVP compared with TURP. These results indicate that PVP is as effective and safe as TURP for BPH at the mid-term patient follow-up, in particular for prostate sizes <70 ml. Due to the different energy settings available for green-light laser sources and the higher efficiency and performance of higher-quality lasers, large-sample, long-term RCTs are required to verify whether different energy settings affect outcomes.