Comparison of EEP and TURP long-term outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term reoperation rate and functional outcomes between EEP (endoscopic enucleation of the prostate) and TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature review of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted with primary outcome assessed being reoperation rate and secondary outcomes after a long term (> 3 years) being functional outcomes or related values (prostate volume, PSA level, etc.). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Five studies were found with long-term follow-up 4-7 years. EEP reoperation rate ranged from 0 to 1.27%, while from 1.7 to 17.6% for TURP. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower OR for EEP, 0.27 (95% CI 0.24-0.31), with notable homogeneity of the results, I2 = 0%. Long-term Qmax and IPSS were significantly better for EEP. Qmax pooled mean difference was 1.79 (95% CI 1.72-1.86) ml/s with a high concordance among the studies, I2 = 0%. IPSS mean difference -1.24 (95% CI - 1.28 to - 1.2) points, I2 = 57% but QoL did not differ, with mean difference being 0.01 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.04), I2 = 0%. IIEF-5 score was also significantly better for EEP, mean difference 1.08 (95% CI 1.03-1.13), but heterogeneity was high, I2 = 70%. PSA level and prostate volume were only reported in one study and favored EEP slightly yet statistically significant. CONCLUSION: EEP had a significantly lower reoperation rate and better functional outcomes (Qmax and IPSS) at long term compared with TURP. It may also be beneficial in terms of IIEF-5, PVR, and PSA level.

Enucleation vs. vaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a head-to-head comparison of the various outcomes and complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vaporization of the prostate (VP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are reliable and frequently used methods for BPO relief. Both surgeries utilize lasers and EAU recommends them in similar patient cohorts. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative results of patients who had undergone VP and EEP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42020204739. Primary outcomes were functional results (IPSS, QoL, PVR, Qmax), and secondary outcomes were intraoperative results, postoperative PSA and prostate volume, complications, and recurrence rate. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: VP required less operative time compared to EEP, mean difference -5.51 (95% CI -7.52; -3.50). IPSS and Qmax for VP were worse after 12-month follow-up, mean difference 0.89 (95% CI 0.52; 1.27) and -3.7 (95% CI -4.56; -2.85), respectively, while QoL did not differ significantly. Postoperative PSA level was higher in the VP group, mean difference 2.28 (95% CI 2.00; 2.55). VP was associated with reduced Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR=4.16; 95% CI 2.96; 5.84) and grade II (OR=3.79; 95% CI 2.25; 6.39) complication rate, especially in terms of the percentage of blood transfusion and transient urinary incontinence. The rate of complications grade IIIa and higher was similar (3-6%). Reoperation rate was only estimated in one study and was significantly higher in the PVP group at 60 months of follow-up, 2.7% vs. 0%, P<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: EEP and VP share the efficacy and safety in BPH management. Our meta-analysis shows comparable complication rate in Clavien-Dindo III, VP superiority in operation time, and EEP superiority in long-term functional outcomes and PSA reduction.