Functional outcomes and complications following B-TURP versus HoLEP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review of the literature and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and Meta-analysis of the literature on the efficacy and safety of B-TURP versus HoLEP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in terms of demographic and clinical baseline characteristics, peri-operative variables, and postoperative outcomes and complications.

Methods: Trials comparing B-TURP and HoLEP were identified systematically using Pubmed, Embase, CNKI, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were the peak urinary flow rate (Q_max), post-void residual volume (PVR) and international prostate symptom score (IPSS). Secondary outcomes were operation time, irrigation duration, catheterization duration, resected tissue and complications.

Results: Four trials assessing B-TURP and HoLEP were considered eligible for Meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one retrospective study. There was no statistically significant difference between B-TURP and HoLEP in terms of Q_max, IPSS, PVR at 3–6 months follow-up, operation duration, catheterization duration, resected tissue and complications (p > 0.05). HoLEP was associated with a significantly shorter irrigation time as compared with B-TURP (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Both B-TURP and HoLEP are safe and minimally invasive techniques that are similar in terms of symptomatic relief, although these findings need further validation in larger RCTs involving larger numbers of patients and over a longer follow-up duration for B-TURP or HoLEP before a new gold standard procedure emerges for surgical treatment of BPH.

Keywords:

• B-TURP
• HoLEP
• Meta

Declaration of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this article.

Sponsored by Shanghai Municipal Planning Commission [No. 201540081], Shanghai Natural Science Foundation [No. 17ZR1417300], Shanghai Science and Technology Commission Fund [No. 14430720800] and NSFC Fund [No. 81570684].