World journal of urology · 2021
Effectiveness of convective water vapor energy therapy versus prostatic urethral lift for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and indirect comparison.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tallman Christopher T, Zantek Paul F, Hernandez Natalia, Morton Ronald A, Qi Dongfeng, Gonzalez Ricardo R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and convective water vapor thermal energy therapy (WAVE) for minimally invasive treatment of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
METHODS: A systematic search of databases was performed to identify trials comparing WAVE or PUL to either an active or sham surgery control in subjects with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction. A controlled indirect treatment comparison based on the approach of Bucher was performed for outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax). The durability of treatment response was assessed by life-table analysis of freedom from retreatment through 4 years.
RESULTS: Two multicenter sham-controlled trials (Rezum II Study, NCT01912339: LIFT Study, NCT01294150) were identified. The trials employed a common sham procedure and were similar with respect to their designs and subjects' baseline characteristics. Comparisons on the treatment effect in excess of sham response found non-significant differences between WAVE and PUL for symptom score [mean difference (MD): - 1.7 points; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 4.8, 1.4] but Qmax improvements favored WAVE [MD: 3.4 ml/sec; CI: 1.2, 5.6]. The proportion free of retreatment through 4 years was 89.1% for WAVE versus 75.4% for PUL [log-rank P = 0.004].
CONCLUSIONS: PUL and WAVE provide similar subjective improvements but flow-rate improvement and durability of response seem greater for WAVE. The confirmation of these findings in a randomized trial is warranted.
METHODS: A systematic search of databases was performed to identify trials comparing WAVE or PUL to either an active or sham surgery control in subjects with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction. A controlled indirect treatment comparison based on the approach of Bucher was performed for outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax). The durability of treatment response was assessed by life-table analysis of freedom from retreatment through 4 years.
RESULTS: Two multicenter sham-controlled trials (Rezum II Study, NCT01912339: LIFT Study, NCT01294150) were identified. The trials employed a common sham procedure and were similar with respect to their designs and subjects' baseline characteristics. Comparisons on the treatment effect in excess of sham response found non-significant differences between WAVE and PUL for symptom score [mean difference (MD): - 1.7 points; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 4.8, 1.4] but Qmax improvements favored WAVE [MD: 3.4 ml/sec; CI: 1.2, 5.6]. The proportion free of retreatment through 4 years was 89.1% for WAVE versus 75.4% for PUL [log-rank P = 0.004].
CONCLUSIONS: PUL and WAVE provide similar subjective improvements but flow-rate improvement and durability of response seem greater for WAVE. The confirmation of these findings in a randomized trial is warranted.