Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
Enucleation of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Using a 980 nm Diode Laser
Published on: May 5, 2020
One-year outcomes after prostate artery embolization versus laser enucleation: A network meta-analysis
Ansh Bhatia1,2, Joao Gabriel Porto3, Aneesha Maini4
1Department of Interventional Radiology, Miller School of Medicine University of Miami Miami Florida USA.
Background:
Although holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) is considered a size-independent procedure for treatment of an enlarged prostate, prostate artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an alternative modality to treat moderate and large benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study aims to compare the early post-operative and short-term efficacy of PAE and HoLEP.
Methods:
PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were searched. Network meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA-N-guidelines. Post-operative parameters analysed include international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximal uroflow rate (Qmax) and serious adverse events (SAE). Random effects model calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). If 95%CI crossed the line of no effect (WMD = 0), evidence indicated no statistically significant difference between treatments compared.
Results:
Qualitative and quantitative syntheses included 20 and 18 studies with 1991 and 1606 patients, respectively. At 3 months, there was no statistically significant difference between PAE and HoLEP in IPSS score improvement [WMD: -2.21: 95%CI: (-10.20, 5.78), favouring PAE], QoL score improvement [WMD: -0.22:95%CI: (-1.75, 1.32), favouring PAE] and PVR improvement [WMD: 26.97: 95%CI: (-59.53, 113.48), favouring HoLEP]. However, PAE was found inferior to HoLEP for Qmax improvement [WMD: 8.47, 95%CI: (2.89, 14.05), favouring HoLEP]. At 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant was found between PAE and HoLEP for IPSS score improvement [WMD:6.03, 95%CI: (-1.30, 13.35)], QoL score improvement [WMD: 0.03, 95%CI: (-1.19, 1.25)], PVR improvement [WMD:4.11, 95%CI: (-32.31, 40.53)] and Qmax improvement [WMD:2.60, 95%CI: (-2.20, 7.41)] with all differences favouring HoLEP. PAE was superior to HoLEP for SAE [PAE vs. HoLEP-OR: 0.68, 95%CI: (0.25, 1.37)].
Conclusion:
HoLEP was superior to PAE at 3 months for Qmax improvement. There was no significant difference in IPSS, QoL, PVR and Qmax improvement at 1 year between PAE and HoLEP. PAE was also associated with lesser SAE compared to HoLEP. Studies on the long-term outcome of PAE are needed to establish the durability of early outcomes after PAE.
