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

Figures & data

Table 1. Jadad score calculation for in included studies.

	Zhu et al. [21]	Amr et al. [18]	Mischel et al. [19]	Chen Yanbo et al. [20]
Was the study described as randomized (this includes words such as randomly, random and randomization)?	0	1	1	1
Was the method used to generate the sequence of randomization described and appropriate (table of random numbers, computer generated, etc.)?	0	1	1	1
Was the study described as double blind?	0	0	0	0
Was the method of double blinding described and appropriate (identical placebo, active placebo, dummy, etc.)?	0	0	0	0
Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts?	0	1	1	1
Total	0	3	3	3

Figure 1. Flow chart for study selection. HoLEP: holmium laser enucleation prostatectomy; B-TURP: bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate.

Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the included studies.

	Zhu et al. [21]		Amr et al. [18]		Mischel et al. [19]		Chen Yanbo et al. [20]
Design	Retrospective		RCT		RCT		RCT
Treatments	B-TURP	HoLEP	B-TURP	HoLEP	B-TURP	HoLEP	B-TURP	HoLEP
No. of cases	34	22	30	30	20	20	140	140
Age (years)	74.1 ± 6.6	76.2 ± 6.9	61.2 ± 4.2	60.0 ± 4.5	67.0 ± 1.7	68.9 ± 2.0	NA	NA
Prostate volume (ml)	109.0 ± 31.9	117.7 ± 40.3	80.6 ± 17.8	76.5 ± 17.2	51.0 ± 3.9	57.0 ± 5.1	60.3 ± 22.4	56.7 ± 28.4
PSA	NA	NA	4.4 ± 1.25	4.2 ± 1.3	NA	NA	2.35 ± 1.52	2.23 ± 1.27
Qmax	7.6 ± 3.1	8.1 ± 1.6	7.0 ± 1.0	7.4 ± 0.9	7.5 ± 0.8	7.4 ± 0.5	7.20 ± 2.18	7.21 ± 2.44
PVR (ml)	129 ± 37.6	115.7 ± 50.9	NA	NA	114.0 ± 23.2	125.0 ± 19.3	131.3 ± 61.8	128.26 ± 62.1
QoL	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	4.63 ± 0.72	4.50 ± 0.76
IPSS	25.3 ± 5.5	20.7 ± 4.9	22.2 ± 2.3	22.6 ± 2.5	24.4 ± 1.2	25.8 ± 1.3	23.62 ± 3.22	23.27 ± 3.91
IIEF-5	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	18.34 ± 3.29	18.02 ± 3.37
Follow-up (months)	1, 3		1, 3, 6		1, 3, 6, 24		1, 6, 12, 24

RCT: randomized controlled trials; B-TURP: bipolar transurethral resection of prostate; HoLEP: holmium laser enucleation; PSA: prostate special antigen; Q_max: peak urinary flow rate; PVR: post-void residual volume; QoL: quality of life; IPSS: international prostate symptom score; IIEF-5: International Index of Erectile Function-5; NA: not available.

Figure 2. Q_max between B-TURP and HoLEP.

Figure 3. PVR between B-TURP and HoLEP.

Figure 4. IPSS between B-TURP and HoLEP.

Figure 5. Operation duration between B-TURP and HoLEP.

Figure 6. Catheterization duration between B-TURP and HoLEP.

Figure 7. Irrigation time between B-TURP and HoLEP.

Figure 8. Resected tissue between B-TURP and HoLEP.

Table 3. The postoperative adverse events.

	B-TURP (n/cases)	HoLEP (n/cases)	p	Favors
Blood transfusion	1/160	0/160	0.18	None
Reoperation	3/160	1/160	0.17	None
Recatherization	3/160	1/160	0.17	None
Incontinence	6/160	14/160	0.14	None
Urinary tract infection	1/20	1/20	0.14	None

n = the adverse event cases.

Zhu Q, Gu X, Yuan L, et al. TUBVP and HOLEP: desirable surgical options for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (>80 ml). Natl J Androl 2008;14:907–10.

 Google Scholar

Fayad AS, EI Sheikh MG, Zakaria T, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized study. Which to choose? J Endourol 2011;25:1347–52.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, et al. Randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasm-akinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2006;5:1020–4.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen Y, Chen Q, Wang Z, et al A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing plasm-akinetic resection of the prostate with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate based on a 2-year follow up. J Urol 2013;189:217–22.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar