title: Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There is a continuous decline in the number of transurethral resections of the prostate (TURP) and an increase use of minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Current results from randomised controlled trials (RCT) and methodologically sound prospective studies suggest that some of the proposed procedures have the potential to replace TURP.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine the contemporary status of TURP and of the currently most commonly applied transurethral MISTs: (1) bipolar TURP, (2) bipolar transurethral vaporisation of the prostate (bipolar TUVP), (3) holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), and (4) potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser vaporisation of the prostate.
  
  
  METHODS
  This meta-analysis was based on a systematic Medline search assessing the period 1997-2009. All RCTs comparing TURP and the most commonly discussed ablative treatments were included. The end points of our analyses were functional outcomes and treatment-related adverse events.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-seven publications involving 23 different RCTs with a total of 2245 patients provided the highest level of evidence available (level 1b) and were fully assessed. Meta-analysis was conducted with SAS v.9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Forest plots were produced using the R software. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated between various operative techniques versus TURP. Functional results between the specific transurethral procedures versus TURP were summarised as differences in means.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This meta-analysis demonstrates statistically comparable efficacy and overall morbidity for MISTs versus contemporary TURP. Type, category (minor vs major), and the number of complications (safety profile) vary specifically for each of the different transurethral techniques. We feel that the individual patient's clinical profile should be carefully assessed to identify the most appropriate transurethral technique.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. sahyai@uke.uni-hamburg.de
authors.forename: Sascha A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Ahyai
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Gilling
authors.forename: Steven A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Kaplan
authors.forename: Rainer M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Kuntz
authors.forename: Stephan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Madersbacher
authors.forename: Francesco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Montorsi
authors.forename: Mark J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Speakman
authors.forename: Christian G
authors.initials: CG
authors.lastname: Stief
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011470:Prostatic Hyperplasia / Q000150:complications; D053448:Prostatism / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery*; D020728:Transurethral Resection of Prostate / Q000009:adverse effects*; D016896:Treatment Outcome