Does power setting impact surgical outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
benign prostatic hyperplasia
high-power laser
holmium laser
low-power laser
Journal
Central European journal of urology
ISSN: 2080-4806
Titre abrégé: Cent European J Urol
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 101587101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
22
05
2022
revised:
30
05
2022
accepted:
01
06
2022
entrez:
8
8
2022
pubmed:
9
8
2022
medline:
9
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this article was to enumerate the differences in immediate and postoperative outcomes for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) performed with low-power (LP) or high-power (HP) laser settings through a systematic review of comparative studies. We performed a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. Potential clinical differences among LP and HP HoLEP were determined using the PICOS (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) model, where outcomes were surgical time, operative efficiency, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion, incontinence rate, maximum urinary flow rate (QMax) and International Prostatic Symptom score (IPSS). Retrospective, prospective nonrandomized, randomized studies, and meeting abstracts were considered. A total of five studies were included for meta-analysis. No significant differences between LP and HP HoLEP were evidenced in terms of intraoperative variables (surgical time, surgical efficiency); postoperative outcomes (length of stay, length of catheterization); postoperative complications; functional results (IPSS; Qmax). Urinary incontinence rate did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.362.47, p = 0.91). The study shows equal outcomes in outcomes from HoLEP performed with LP or HP energy settings. Even if further comparative studies are still needed to increase the level of evidence, those results encourage a further clinical adoption of LP HoLEP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35937664
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2022.0104
pii: 0104
pmc: PMC9326704
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
153-161Informations de copyright
Copyright by Polish Urological Association.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Urology. 2018 Nov;121:58-65
pubmed: 30031005
World J Urol. 2015 Apr;33(4):487-93
pubmed: 25416347
Urologe A. 2008 Apr;47(4):441-8
pubmed: 18338152
World J Urol. 2010 Feb;28(1):53-62
pubmed: 20052586
Arch Esp Urol. 2020 Oct;73(8):745-752
pubmed: 33025919
J Urol. 2019 Oct;202(4):795-800
pubmed: 31009288
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Dec;22(4):493-508
pubmed: 30816336
Curr Opin Urol. 2018 May;28(3):301-308
pubmed: 29538164
World J Urol. 2021 Aug;39(8):3005-3011
pubmed: 33398423
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
J Endourol. 1998 Oct;12(5):457-9
pubmed: 9847070
Eur Urol. 2006 Dec;50(6):1306-14; discussion 1314-5
pubmed: 17049716
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Urology. 2019 Oct;132:177-182
pubmed: 31252004
J Urol. 2003 Oct;170(4 Pt 1):1270-4
pubmed: 14501739
World J Urol. 2018 Mar;36(3):441-447
pubmed: 29275506
Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5 Suppl):108-13
pubmed: 16194716
Eur Urol Focus. 2022 Jan 29;:
pubmed: 35105516
World J Urol. 2018 May;36(5):837-838
pubmed: 29374842
Urology. 1998 Apr;51(4):573-7
pubmed: 9586609
Res Rep Urol. 2021 Jul 09;13:487-494
pubmed: 34268258
Urology. 2019 Feb;124:213-217
pubmed: 30528716
Andrologia. 2020 Sep;52(8):e13557
pubmed: 32147865
Urology. 2017 Dec;110:51-55
pubmed: 28882779
Urology. 2004 Mar;63(3):586-90
pubmed: 15028473