Affiliation:
1. Department of Interventional Radiology, Miller School of Medicine University of Miami Miami Florida USA
2. Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital Mumbai India
3. Department of Urology University of Miami Miami Florida USA
4. School of Medicine Georgetown University Washington District of Columbia USA
5. School of Medicine DY Patil University Navi Mumbai India
6. Department of Urology Switzerland Urology Spital Thurgau AG (STGAG) Frauenfeld Switzerland
7. Department of Urology, Desai Sethi Urology Institute, Miller School of Medicine University of Miami Miami Florida USA
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundAlthough holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) is considered a size‐independent procedure for treatment of an enlarged prostate, prostate artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an alternative modality to treat moderate and large benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study aims to compare the early post‐operative and short‐term efficacy of PAE and HoLEP.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were searched. Network meta‐analysis was performed following PRISMA‐N‐guidelines. Post‐operative parameters analysed include international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), post‐void residual urine (PVR), maximal uroflow rate (Qmax) and serious adverse events (SAE). Random effects model calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). If 95%CI crossed the line of no effect (WMD = 0), evidence indicated no statistically significant difference between treatments compared.ResultsQualitative and quantitative syntheses included 20 and 18 studies with 1991 and 1606 patients, respectively. At 3 months, there was no statistically significant difference between PAE and HoLEP in IPSS score improvement [WMD: −2.21: 95%CI: (−10.20, 5.78), favouring PAE], QoL score improvement [WMD: −0.22:95%CI: (−1.75, 1.32), favouring PAE] and PVR improvement [WMD: 26.97: 95%CI: (−59.53, 113.48), favouring HoLEP]. However, PAE was found inferior to HoLEP for Qmax improvement [WMD: 8.47, 95%CI: (2.89, 14.05), favouring HoLEP]. At 1‐year follow‐up, there was no statistically significant was found between PAE and HoLEP for IPSS score improvement [WMD:6.03, 95%CI: (−1.30, 13.35)], QoL score improvement [WMD: 0.03, 95%CI: (−1.19, 1.25)], PVR improvement [WMD:4.11, 95%CI: (−32.31, 40.53)] and Qmax improvement [WMD:2.60, 95%CI: (−2.20, 7.41)] with all differences favouring HoLEP. PAE was superior to HoLEP for SAE [PAE vs. HoLEP‐OR: 0.68, 95%CI: (0.25, 1.37)].ConclusionHoLEP was superior to PAE at 3 months for Qmax improvement. There was no significant difference in IPSS, QoL, PVR and Qmax improvement at 1 year between PAE and HoLEP. PAE was also associated with lesser SAE compared to HoLEP. Studies on the long‐term outcome of PAE are needed to establish the durability of early outcomes after PAE.