Objective To objectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic enucleation for prostate (PKEP) vs plasmakinetic resection for prostate (PKRP) in treating benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Methods Such databases as PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMbase, the ISI Web of Knowledge databases, VIP, CNKI, CBM and Wanfang were searched from their establishment to March 2011 for collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PKEP vs PKRP for the treatment of BPH, and the references of those RCTs were also searched by hand. After study selection, assessment and data extraction conducted by two reviewers independently, meta-analyses were performed by using the RevMan 5.1 software. The level of evidence was assessed by using the GRADE system. Results Eight studies involving 991 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) safety indicator: compared with the PKRP, PKEP had shorter operation time (SMD=1.07, 95%CI 0.19 to 1.94, P=0.02), less intraoperative bleeding (SMD=2.06, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.69, Plt;0.01), much quantity of resectable prostate (SMD= –0.91, 95%CI –1.33 to –0.48, Plt;0.000 1), less intraoperative perforation (RR=4.48, 95%CI 1.43 to 14.02, P=0.01), shorter catheterization time (SMD=1.98, 95%CI 0.39 to 3.57, P=0.01), shorter bladder irrigation time (SMD=3.49, 95%CI 0.51 to 6.47, P=0.02) and shorter hospital stay (SMD=0.89, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.13, Plt;0.01), but there was no significant difference in total postoperative complications (RR=0.82, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.24, P=0.35); and b) efficacy indicator: compared with the PKRP, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was lower after 3 months, the Quality Of Life (QOL) was higher after 3 months, and the improvement of residual urine volume (RUV) was better after 6 months; but other efficacy indicators had no significant difference between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). Based on GRADE system, all the evidence was at level C and weak recommendation (2C). Conclusion The current evidence indicates that PKEP is similar to PKRP in the treating effect, but it resects the proliferated prostate more cleanly with shorter operation time, lesser bleeding and more safety than PKRP; for the poor quality of the original studies, a prudent choice is suggested; and more high-quality, large-sample studies are need.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsRandomized controlled trials of HoLEP versus PKEP in the treatment of BPH published between January 2000 and March 2021 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP database, and Wanfang database. Operative duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss, average duration of urinary catheterization, average duration of bladder irrigation, average length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were used as safety evaluation indicators. Postoperative International Prostatic Symptomatic Score (IPSS), postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postoperative quality of life (QoL), and postvoid residual (PVR) were used as effective evaluation indicators.ResultsA total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, with a total of 1 478 patients (744 in the HoLEP group and 734 in the PKEP group). The results of the meta-analysis showed that the intraoperative blood loss in the HoLEP group was less than that in the PKEP group [weighted mean difference (WMD)=−25.95 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−31.65, 20.25) mL, P=0.025], the average duration of urinary catheterization [WMD=−10.35 h, 95%CI (−18.25, −2.45) h, P=0.042], average duration of bladder irrigation [WMD=−10.28 h, 95%CI (−17.52, −3.04) h, P=0.038], and average length of hospital stay [WMD=−1.24 d, 95%CI (−1.85, −0.62) d, P=0.033] in the HoLEP group were shorter than those in the PKEP group, and the incidence of postoperative complications [risk ratio=0.70, 95%CI (0.56, 0.87), P=0.047] and 6-month postoperative Qmax [WMD=−0.89 m/s, 95%CI (−1.74, −0.05) m/s, P=0.037] in the HoLEP group were lower than those in the PKEP group. However, there was no significant difference in the operative duration, 3-month postoperative IPSS, 3-month postoperative Qmax, 3-month postoperative QoL, 3-month postoperative PVR, 6-month postoperative IPSS, 6-month postoperative QoL, or 6-month postoperative PVR between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsIn the treatment of BPH, the effectiveness of HoLEP does not differ from that of PKEP, but HoLEP is safer. The conclusions of this study need to be verified in more precisely designed and larger sample-sized multi-center randomized controlled trials.