Laser prostatectomy of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostate enlargement: a critical review of evidence.
Author(s): Bachmann A, Woo HH, Wyler S
Affiliation(s): aDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Basel, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland bSydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Publication date & source: 2012-01, Curr Opin Urol., 22(1):22-33.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Different transurethral prostatic laser systems are available. In 2011, new Oxford evidence levels (LoEs) were published with significant changes compared with the former version. They are easier to use and incorporate more clinical aspects. Randomized trials of laser systems used before 2002, except Holmium laser, were not included in this critical evidence analysis, as these techniques are not in clinical use any more. RECENT FINDINGS: Twenty-five [18 Holmium enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and seven photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP)] randomized trials covering transurethral electroresection of the prostate or HoLEP, PVP or Thulium laser enucleation were identified. According to evidence levels, there is a large gap in terms of long-term follow-up. The majority of randomised controlled trials are of low quality. Typically with HoLEP, many articles were published covering the same patient population (LoE II). Only one randomised controlled trial was published with Tm:YAG prostatectomy (LoE II) and none with diode lasers (980-1340 nm, LoE IV-V). Large cohort studies (LoE III-IV) provide additional evidence for PVP and HoLEP, typically for subgroups. SUMMARY: In 2011, higher evidence on HoLEP and PVP has been published. Evidence levels for HoLEP and PVP are comparable with meta-analysis (LoE II). However, evidence that laser prostatectomy is better than transurethral electroresection of the prostate in terms of efficacy is lacking (LoE II). All lasers are safer in terms of perioperative bleeding (LoE II).