Meta-analysis and systematic review of intermediate-term follow-up of prostatic urethral lift for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Tanneru, Karthik; Gautam, Shiva; Norez, Daniel; Kumar, J.; Alam, Muhammad Umar; Koocheckpour, Shahriar; Balaji, K.C.; Joseph, Costa

doi:10.1007/s11255-020-02408-y

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This feedback, along with other feature suggestions from the wider evidence synthesis community captured via GitHub issues, was incorporated and the first release version of the package was uploaded to CRAN in November 2019. The tool has been well received and is beginning to be cited in the evidence synthesis literature 16‐20 …”

Section: Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments

McGuinness

Higgins

2020

Research Synthesis Methods

2,531

1,337

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a major increase in the range and number of software offerings now available to help researchers produce evidence syntheses, there is currently no generic tool for producing figures to display and explore the risk-of-bias assessments that routinely take place as part of systematic review. However, tools such as the R programming environment and Shiny (an R package for building interactive web apps) have made it straightforward to produce new tools to help in producing evidence syntheses. We present a new tool, robvis (Risk-Of-Bias VISualization), available as an R package and web app, which facilitates rapid production of publication-quality risk-of-bias assessment figures. We present a timeline of the tool's development and its key functionality.

show abstract

Section: Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments

McGuinness

Higgins

2020

Research Synthesis Methods

2,531

1,337

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, we focus on a newly published article with the same subject as our research (27)(28)(29)(30), and some of the results differ from our research. This study analyzed the effectiveness of PUL by comparing the gap between the follow-up value at 24 months and the baseline value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Urethral Lift as a Safe and Effective Procedure for Prostatic Hyplasia Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jing

et al. 2020

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a relatively new minimally invasive treatment procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In order to analyze the sustainability of this new protocol, a systematic review and meta-analysis is performed based on the published articles.Methods: We performed a critical review according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and MOOSE guidelines. A total of 818 published articles matched our search terms, and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data of each follow-up time point (1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) were analyzed in terms of baseline characteristics and functional and sexual health outcomes. The merged means of each time point were calculated using R package meta and shown in the tendency plot.Results: A total of 1,443 patients who underwent PUL are available for the research. At 24 months, the changes of the three indicators are statistically significant (IPSS 9.40 points, p < 0.001; Qmax 3.39 ml/s, p < 0.001; QoL 1.99 points, p < 0.001) but were not as effective as TURP (from literature). The trend plot shows that, as time goes on, the effect of PUL tends to increase first and then weaken. Three items fitted a meaningful curve: IPSS (slope = −1.378 t = −12.395, p < 0.001), Qmax (slope = −1.382 t = −6.429, p < 0.001), and QoL (slope = −0.218, t = −10.058, p < 0.001). Fitted curves of SHIM and PVR are not statistically significant. The regression reveals that IPSS, Qmax, and QoL could be predicted after accepting PUL.Conclusion: PUL appears to be a safe and effective procedure in selected patients with BPH and can improve the symptoms of urinary tract obstruction. However, it is not as effective as TURP and shows no influence to the objective indicators like PVR.

show abstract

“…The number of implants depends on the length of the prostatic urethra, usually two to three implants per side. In different PUL studies, the mean total procedure time was <1 h and the mean number of implants varied between four and five [24].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recently published meta‐analysis of PUL studies with a minimum follow‐up of 24 months, the mean IPSS difference at 24 months compared to baseline was −9.2 points in randomised studies ( n = 2, P < 0.001) and −10.40 points in non‐randomised studies ( n = 3; P < 0.001) [24]. The mean IPSS‐QoL difference at 24 months compared to baseline was −2.2 points in randomised studies and −2.2 points in non‐randomised studies (both P < 0.001) [24]. Likewise, the mean Q max difference was +3.8 mL/s in randomised and +3.0 mL/s in non‐randomised studies (both P < 0.001) [24].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of novel minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To provide an update on novel minimally invasive lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) treatments in a non‐systematic review. To define potential target populations for the various new minimally invasive treatments. Methods Recent literature, meta‐analyses and guideline recommendations for aquablation (AquaBeam®; PROCEPT BioRobotics, Redwood City, CA, USA), water vapour thermal therapy (Rezūm®; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA), prostate artery embolisation (PAE), prostatic urethral lift (UroLift®; NeoTract‐Teleflex, Pleasanton, CA, USA) and the temporary implantable nitinol device [i‐TIND® (nitinol butterfly‐like stent ); Medi‐Tate Ltd., Or‐Akiva, Israel] were reviewed. Results Procedures that can be performed on an outpatient basis (Rezūm, PAE, UroLift and i‐TIND) are not an alternative for the standard patient requiring BPH surgery. Their effect on urinary flow, post‐void residual urine volume or bladder outlet obstruction is less pronounced than that of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Yet, these options appear to be valuable for those patients unfit for surgery, men who want to avoid medical therapy in general, or those who want to avoid sexual side‐effects associated with medical therapy or standard BPH surgery (e.g. TURP). Aquablation is the first successfully operationalised robotic resection system, especially for patients with prostates >50 g. Nevertheless, long‐term data are necessary for all novel, minimally invasive treatments. Conclusions Better designed clinical trials, a clearer definition of target populations and a more realistic marketing allow a better characterisation of novel minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPH. It is hoped that some of these novel devices will stand the test of time, in contrast to the vast majority of their predecessors.

show abstract

Meta-analysis and systematic review of intermediate-term follow-up of prostatic urethral lift for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Cited by 20 publications

References 31 publications

Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments

Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments

Urethral Lift as a Safe and Effective Procedure for Prostatic Hyplasia Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The role of novel minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About