Systematic review and network meta‐analysis of re‐intervention rates of new surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the re‐intervention rates of new surgical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) interventions, as the clinical durability of new surgical interventions for BPH is not widely known.MethodsA critical review of new surgical BPH therapies namely ‘UroLift®’, ‘Aquablation’, ‘Rezum’, ‘prostatic artery embolisation (PAE)’ and ‘temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND)’ was performed on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases between May 2010 and December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement. All relevant articles were reviewed, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk assessment tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.ResultsOf the 32 studies included, there were 10 randomised controlled trials and 22 prospective observational cohorts. A total of 2400 participants were studied with a median patient age of 66 years, a median prostate volume of 51.9 mL, and a median International Prostate Symptom Score of 22. The lowest re‐intervention rate at 12 months was for Aquablation at 0.01%, followed by Rezum at 0.02%, iTIND at 0.03%, and PAE at 0.05%. Network meta‐analysis (NMA) showed that the best‐ranked treatment at 12 months was transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), followed by Aquablation, iTIND, Rezum, and UroLift. Re‐intervention rates with these new BPH interventions are comparable, although some interventions reported better outcomes than TURP in the shorter term.ConclusionsWhile this systematic review and NMA showed that the re‐intervention rate with these new surgical BPH interventions appears to be comparable to TURP in the short term, further studies are required to directly compare these various BPH procedures.