Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using 80-W and 120-W laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis from 2002 to 2012

Context: Photoselective vaporisation (PVP) of the prostate is being used increasingly to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, due to the associated lower morbidity. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was considered to be the treatment with the highest evidence; however, evidence for PVP has dramatically increased recently.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of level 1 evidence studies to determine the effectiveness of PVP versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Outcomes reviewed included perioperative data, complications, and functional outcomes.

Evidence acquisition: Biomedical databases from 2002 to 2012 and American Urological Association and European Association of Urology conference proceedings from 2007 to 2011 were searched. Trials were included if they were randomised controlled trials, had PVP as the intervention, and TURP as control. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

Evidence synthesis: Nine trials were identified with 448 patients undergoing PVP (80 W in five trials and 120 W in four trials) and 441 undergoing TURP. Catheterisation time and length of stay were shorter in the PVP group by 1.91 d (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47-2.35; p<0.00001) and 2.13 d (95% CI, 1.78-2.48; p<0.00001), respectively. Operation time was shorter in the TURP group by 19.64 min (95% CI, 9.05-30.23; p=0.0003). Blood transfusion was significantly less likely in the PVP group (risk ratio: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.53; p=0.003). There were no significant differences between PVP and TURP when comparing other complications. Regarding functional outcomes, six studies found no difference between PVP and TURP, two favoured TURP, and one favoured PVP.

Conclusions: Perioperative outcomes of catheterisation time and length of hospital stay were shorter with PVP, whereas operative time was longer with PVP. Postoperative complications of blood transfusion and clot retention were significantly less likely with PVP; no difference was noted in other complications. Overall, no difference was noted in intermediate-term functional outcomes.