Comparison of different laser-based enucleation techniques for benign prostate hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To summarize the current evidence on different laser-based enucleation techniques for benign prostate hyperplasia and compare the efficacy and safety of en-bloc, two-lobe and three-lobe techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through a systematical search of multiple scientific databases in March 2021, we performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) Guidelines, whose protocol was registered with PROSPERO(CRD42021240684). RESULTS: A total of 9 studies were included. All three laser enucleation techniques had no statistically significant difference in terms of enucleated prostate weight, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), transient UI (TUI), persistent UI (PUI) and early postoperative complications. A shorter enucleation time was associated with the en-bloc technique compared to three technique (MD: -8.26, 95%CI: -12.73--3.79, p = 0.0003), whereas no significant difference was found in en-bloc versus two-lobe technique (MD:0.97,95%CI: -0.30-2.24,p = 0.13) and two-lobe versus three-lobe technique (MD: -3.19, 95%CI: -7.45-1.06, p = 0.14). A higher enucleation rate was associated with the en-bloc and two-lobe technique (MD: 0.05, 95%CI: 0.00-0.10, p = 0.03; MD: 0.09, 95%CI: 0.01-0.17, p = 0.03, respectively). A superior QoL was related to the two-lobe enucleation technique compared to three-lobe technique (MD: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.06-0.39, p = 0.009), whereas no meaningful difference was found in the group of en-bloc versus two-lobe (MD: -0.12, 95%CI: -0.62-0.37, p = 0.62) and group of en-bloc versus three-lobe (MD: -0.14, 95%CI: -0.56-0.29, p = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: En-bloc and two-lobe laser-based enucleation techniques are feasible and safe alternative to three-lobe technique with comparable surgical outcomes and similar functional outcomes. A superior enucleation efficiency was associated with En-bloc and the two-lobe techniques compared to the three-lobe technique.

Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion: A New Standard of Urinary Diversion.

Background: To summarize the current evidence on robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) and compare perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications of patients undergoing RARC with extracorporeal urinary diversion (ECUD) and ICUD. Patients and Methods: Through a systematical search of multiple scientific databases in March 2020, we performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest. Also, we assessed the quality of the relevant evidence according to the framework in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Thirteen studies with 4696 participants were included in this review. No significant differences were found between the ECUD and ICUD in operation time (OT) (mean difference [MD]: -6.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -35.20 to 22.30), length of stay (MD: 0.36, 95% CI: -0.81 to 1.54), 30-day overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.60-1.41), 30-day minor complications (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.85-2.19), 30-day major complications (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.34-1.43), 90-day overall complications (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.83-2.18), and major complications (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.68-1.57). However, less estimate blood loss (MD: 99.28 mL, 95% CI: 62.59-135.98), lower intraoperative blood transfusion (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09-2.95), shorter oral intake time (MD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.43-1.14), and 90-day minor complications (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.08-2.73) were associated with ICUD. The subgroup analysis showed less estimated blood loss (MD: 149.73, 95% CI: 21.33-278.13) and less OT (MD: 32.45, 95% CI: 14.37-50.53) were found in ICUD. Conclusions: The ICUD is a safe and feasible alternative to ECUD, which decreases the need for blood transfusion and reduces 90-day complications. However, further quality studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness of ICUD and its oncologic outcomes, functional outcomes, cost, and the quality of life.