IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0121265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endoscopic Enucleation versus Open Prostatectomy for Treating Large Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Maoyin Li
  • Jianguang Qiu
  • Qi Hou
  • Dejuan Wang
  • Wentao Huang
  • Cheng Hu
  • Ke Li
  • Xin Gao

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EP) vs open prostatectomy (OP) for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: We conducted an electronic search of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to detect all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EP with OP. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Seven RCTs (735 patients) were included. At the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL) score and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) between EP and OP. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was higher with EP (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21 to 1.78, p=0.01) at the 12-month follow-up. The catheterization time (WMD: 3.80 d, 95%CI: -5.11 to -2.48, P

Suggested Citation

  • Maoyin Li & Jianguang Qiu & Qi Hou & Dejuan Wang & Wentao Huang & Cheng Hu & Ke Li & Xin Gao, 2015. "Endoscopic Enucleation versus Open Prostatectomy for Treating Large Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121265
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121265
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121265&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0121265?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.