Limits...
Plasmakinetic resection technology for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li S, Kwong JS, Zeng XT, Ruan XL, Liu TZ, Weng H, Guo Y, Xu C, Yan JZ, Meng XY, Wang XH - Sci Rep (2015)

Bottom Line: Meta-analyses showed that PKRP significantly improved Qmax at 12 months, but no significant difference was found for other efficacy outcomes.In terms of safety, treatment of PKRP was associated with reduced drop in serum sodium, lower TUR syndrome, reduced need of blood transfusion, clot retention, and shorter catheterization time and hospital stay; in contrast, there were no significant differences in the analysis of operative time, postoperative fever, and long-term postoperative complications.In summary, current evidence suggests that, although PKRP and TURP are both effective for BPH, PKRP is associated with additional potential benefits in efficacy and more favorable safety profile.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 1] Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China [2] Center for Evidence-based and Translational Medicine, Wuhan University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in terms of efficacy and safety. Published RCTs were searched from PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library up to April 10, 2014. After methodological quality assessment and data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0 software. 18 reports of 16 RCTs were included in this analysis. Meta-analyses showed that PKRP significantly improved Qmax at 12 months, but no significant difference was found for other efficacy outcomes. In terms of safety, treatment of PKRP was associated with reduced drop in serum sodium, lower TUR syndrome, reduced need of blood transfusion, clot retention, and shorter catheterization time and hospital stay; in contrast, there were no significant differences in the analysis of operative time, postoperative fever, and long-term postoperative complications. In summary, current evidence suggests that, although PKRP and TURP are both effective for BPH, PKRP is associated with additional potential benefits in efficacy and more favorable safety profile. It may be possible that PKRP may replace the TURP in the future and become a new standard surgical procedure.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Trial sequential analysis of clot retention.A diversity adjusted information size of 2469 patients was calculated using a two side α = 5%, β = 20% (power 80%), D2 = 0%, an anticipated relative risk increase of 35% and an event propotion of 9% in the control arm. Trials with no events were included in the study with a constant continuity correction of 1.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4496666&req=5

f8: Trial sequential analysis of clot retention.A diversity adjusted information size of 2469 patients was calculated using a two side α = 5%, β = 20% (power 80%), D2 = 0%, an anticipated relative risk increase of 35% and an event propotion of 9% in the control arm. Trials with no events were included in the study with a constant continuity correction of 1.

Mentions: Meta-analysis of 9 trials242728293233343536 using a fixed-effect model (I2 = 0%) showed that the clot retention rate was reduced in PKRP group, and there was significant difference between them (RR: 0.21, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.41, Fig. 7). TSA demonstrated that 1159 (47%) of required information size of 2469 patients was accrued to detect or reject a 35% diminution in relative risk, however, the cumulative Z-curve crossed the conventional boundary for favoring PKRP providing firm evidence of more safety in clot retention treated by PKRP compared to TURP (TSA adjusted 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.58, Fig. 8).


Plasmakinetic resection technology for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li S, Kwong JS, Zeng XT, Ruan XL, Liu TZ, Weng H, Guo Y, Xu C, Yan JZ, Meng XY, Wang XH - Sci Rep (2015)

Trial sequential analysis of clot retention.A diversity adjusted information size of 2469 patients was calculated using a two side α = 5%, β = 20% (power 80%), D2 = 0%, an anticipated relative risk increase of 35% and an event propotion of 9% in the control arm. Trials with no events were included in the study with a constant continuity correction of 1.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4496666&req=5

f8: Trial sequential analysis of clot retention.A diversity adjusted information size of 2469 patients was calculated using a two side α = 5%, β = 20% (power 80%), D2 = 0%, an anticipated relative risk increase of 35% and an event propotion of 9% in the control arm. Trials with no events were included in the study with a constant continuity correction of 1.
Mentions: Meta-analysis of 9 trials242728293233343536 using a fixed-effect model (I2 = 0%) showed that the clot retention rate was reduced in PKRP group, and there was significant difference between them (RR: 0.21, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.41, Fig. 7). TSA demonstrated that 1159 (47%) of required information size of 2469 patients was accrued to detect or reject a 35% diminution in relative risk, however, the cumulative Z-curve crossed the conventional boundary for favoring PKRP providing firm evidence of more safety in clot retention treated by PKRP compared to TURP (TSA adjusted 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.58, Fig. 8).

Bottom Line: Meta-analyses showed that PKRP significantly improved Qmax at 12 months, but no significant difference was found for other efficacy outcomes.In terms of safety, treatment of PKRP was associated with reduced drop in serum sodium, lower TUR syndrome, reduced need of blood transfusion, clot retention, and shorter catheterization time and hospital stay; in contrast, there were no significant differences in the analysis of operative time, postoperative fever, and long-term postoperative complications.In summary, current evidence suggests that, although PKRP and TURP are both effective for BPH, PKRP is associated with additional potential benefits in efficacy and more favorable safety profile.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: 1] Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China [2] Center for Evidence-based and Translational Medicine, Wuhan University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in terms of efficacy and safety. Published RCTs were searched from PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library up to April 10, 2014. After methodological quality assessment and data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0 software. 18 reports of 16 RCTs were included in this analysis. Meta-analyses showed that PKRP significantly improved Qmax at 12 months, but no significant difference was found for other efficacy outcomes. In terms of safety, treatment of PKRP was associated with reduced drop in serum sodium, lower TUR syndrome, reduced need of blood transfusion, clot retention, and shorter catheterization time and hospital stay; in contrast, there were no significant differences in the analysis of operative time, postoperative fever, and long-term postoperative complications. In summary, current evidence suggests that, although PKRP and TURP are both effective for BPH, PKRP is associated with additional potential benefits in efficacy and more favorable safety profile. It may be possible that PKRP may replace the TURP in the future and become a new standard surgical procedure.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus