Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2022 August;74(4) > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2022 August;74(4):389-99

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Publishing options
eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2022 August;74(4):389-99

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04530-4

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Emerging minimally invasive transurethral treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes and description of complications

Celeste MANFREDI 1 , Davide ARCANIOLO 1, Pietro SPATAFORA 2, Fabio CROCEROSSA 3, Ferdinando FUSCO 1, Paolo VERZE 4, Cristian FIORI 5, Rocco DAMIANO 3, Luca CINDOLO 6, Marco DE SIO 1, Javier R. OTERO 7, 8

1 Unit of Urology, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, Luigi Vanvitelli University of Campania, Naples, Italy; 2 Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urologic Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 3 Department of Urology, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy; 4 Scuola Medica Salernitana, Department of Medicine, Surgery, Dentistry, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 5 Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 6 Department of Urology, Villa Stuart Private Hospital, Rome, Italy; 7 Department of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), 12 Octubre University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; 8 Unit of Urology, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain



INTRODUCTION: Several minimally invasive surgical procedures have been proposed as alternative therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The present systematic review aimed to describe the functional outcomes and complications of emerging minimally invasive transurethral treatments for BPH.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive bibliographic search on the Medline and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. No chronological restriction was applied. Retrospective and prospective primary studies were included. A meta-analysis of IPSS, IPSS-QoL, Qmax, and PVR was performed. Data on adverse events were presented narratively.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 18 studies were included. Thirteen papers were eligible for the meta-analysis. iTIND (Medi-Tate Ltd., Or-Akiva, Israel), Rezūm (Rezūm System, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), and Aquablation (AquaBeam System, PROCEPT BioRobotics Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) were associated with a significant improvement in IPSS (P<0.001), IPSS-QoL (P<0.001), and Qmax (P<0.001) compared to baseline. A significant reduction of PVR from baseline was found with Rezūm (P<0.001) and Aquablation (P<0.001) but not iTIND (P=0.22). A significant difference in IPSS, IPSS-QoL, and Qmax was shown in favor of Aquablation compared to Rezūm and iTIND (P<0.001). Rezūm and iTIND were mainly associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. Hematuria or bleeding was reported in all studies regarding Aquablation (0.8-26%), the need for transfusion or intervention for bleeding varied between 1.8% and 9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Aquablation, Rezūm, and iTIND significantly improve urinary functional outcomes compared to baseline; however, Aquablation would seem to lead to better functional results compared to the other procedures. Rezūm and iTIND appear to have an excellent safety profile, while Aquablation would seem to expose patients to a non-negligible risk of bleeding.


KEY WORDS: Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Lower urinary tract symptoms; Urology

top of page