Next Article in Journal
Robotic-Assisted Epicardial Hybrid Ablation and Left Appendage Closure in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: First European Experience
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Esophageal and Gastric Cancer Surgery in Germany: A Four-Year Retrospective Single-Center Study of 287 Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm13061561
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Functional Outcome and Safety of Endoscopic Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) in Patients ≥ 75 Years of Age

by
Susanne Deininger
1,
Anna Maria Dieplinger
2,
Wanda Lauth
3,
Lukas Lusuardi
1,
Peter Törzsök
1,4,
David Oswald
1,
Maximilian Pallauf
1,
Christian Eiben
1,
Julia Peters
1,
Eva Erne
5,
Quirin Zangl
6,
Christian Deininger
7,8 and
Christian Ramesmayer
1,*
1
Department of Urology and Andrology, Salzburg University Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
2
Institute for Nursing Science and Practice, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
3
Team Biostatistics and Big Medical Data, IDA Lab Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Strubergasse 16, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
4
Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, Széchenyi István University, 9026 Györ, Hungary
5
Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
6
Department of Neuroanesthesia, Christian Doppler Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
7
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Salzburg University Hospital, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
8
Institute of Tendon and Bone Regeneration, Paracelsus Medical University, Spinal Cord Injury & Tissue Regeneration Center Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(6), 1561; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061561
Submission received: 11 February 2024 / Revised: 1 March 2024 / Accepted: 3 March 2024 / Published: 8 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Epidemiology & Public Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The selection of suitable patients for the surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is a challenge in persons ≥75 years of age. Methods: After a systematic literature search of PubMed, 22 articles were included in this review. Clinical and functional parameters were evaluated statistically. Results: The mean age of the patients was ≥79 years. The mean duration of postoperative catheterization ranged between 2 (d) (ThuLEP, thulium laser enucleation of the prostate) and 4.4 days (TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate). Complication rates ranged between 6% (HoLAP, holmium laser ablation of the prostate) and 34% (PVP, photoselective vaporization of the prostate); the maximum rate of severe complications was 4% (TURP). The mean postoperative maximal urinary flow (Qmax) in mL/sec. ranged between 12.9 mL/sec. (HoLAP) and 19.8 mL/sec (Hol-TUIP, holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate). The mean quality of life (QoL) score fell from 4.7 ± 0.9 to 1.8 ± 0.7 (HoLEP), from 4.1 ± 0.4 to 1.9 ± 0.8 (PVP), from 5.1 ± 0.2 to 2.1 ± 0.2 (TURP), and from 4 to 1 (ThuVEP, thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate). Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) revealed a positive linear correlation between age and inferior functional outcome (higher postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) [r = 0.4175]), higher overall complication rates (r = 0.5432), and blood transfusions (r = 0.4474) across all surgical techniques. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides the summary estimates for perioperative and postoperative functional outcome and safety of endoscopic treatment options for BPO in patients ≥ 75 years of age. Of particular importance is that all surgical techniques significantly improve the postoperative quality of life of patients in this age group compared to their preoperative quality of life.

1. Introduction

Benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is among the most commonly encountered conditions in urologic care [1]. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, the age-standardized prevalence of BPO was 1.620/100,000 in Germany and 2.250/100,000 in Western Europe [2]. Age is an independent risk factor for its prevalence and severity [3]. Between the ages of 40 and 80 years, the mean prostate volume increases continuously from a median of 21.4 to a median of 34.0–38 cubic centimeters (cc), while the maximum urinary flow Qmax decreases continuously from a median of 20.5–22.1 to a median of 13.0–13.7 mL/s. Likewise, subjective complaints increase consistently [4,5,6]. Old and very old patients (VOPs) experience BPO in large numbers; the age-specific prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) confirmed in anatomical studies is as high as 80% in nonagenarians [7]. And VOPs are a difficult patient population in terms of surgical care; postoperative morbidity in prostate surgery is linked to age, polypharmacy, and preoperative catheterization [8].
Low birth rates and longer life expectancy are transforming population demographics in high- and middle-income countries. The oldest defined age group (i.e., those ≥85 years of age) is the fastest expanding section of the population. According to reports, the yearly growth rate of this age group worldwide is 3.8%. One-fifth of the elderly will belong to the oldest old age group by 2050.
This is also expected to cause an absolute and percentage increase in the numbers of BPOs requiring treatment. Various transurethral techniques are currently available for the surgical treatment of BPOs. However, many pivotal studies have been conducted in patients of significantly younger ages. Little is known about perioperative courses and functional outcomes in the VOPs group.
The aim of this work is to systematically review and meta-analyze clinical studies investigating established endoscopic techniques for BPO treatment in patients ≥ 75 years of age.

2. Materials and Methods

A part of this report was incorporated in a so-called academic expert thesis for the Master’s program entitled Health Sciences and Leadership at Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg.

2.1. Literature Search

From February to March 2023, the first author performed a literature search on PubMed/Medline to identify existing studies on transurethral surgical procedures performed for the indication of BPO in patients over 75 years of age. Those studies which explicitly included perioperative courses and outcomes in these age groups were included. When multiple follow-up (FU) periods were mentioned, the results for the longest one were reported in the analysis. Studies published over the last 11 years were included (January 2012–March 2023). The following search terms were used in different combinations: 75/85 years, Aquablation® (PROCEPT BioRobotics, 900 Island Drive, 94065 Redwood City, CA, USA), BPO/BPH, elderly, frail, GreenLight XPS™ (Boston Scientific, 300 Boston Scientific Way, 01752 Marlborough, MA, United States), HoLEP, laser, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), octogenarians, photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), prostate, prostatic urethral lift, potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP), Rezum™ (Boston Scientific, 300 Boston Scientific Way, 01752 Marlborough, United States), septuagenarian, transurethral, TURP/transurethral resection, and (very) old. The reference lists of the identified studies were used to locate additional relevant studies within the literature.

2.2. Study Selection

The research question was developed using the PICO scheme [9]:
  • P (Population): male, age ≥ 75 years, with the indication for surgical therapy for BPO;
  • I (Intervention): different endoscopic treatment options for BPO;
  • C (Comparison): various;
  • O (Outcome): different functional parameters, rate of complications, QoL.
Studies were selected according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement (PRISMA) [10]. The study selection process is shown in Figure 1. A total of 833 articles were identified through database research. An additional 18 articles were identified from other sources (compare [11]). Duplicates were omitted. Of the remaining 722 articles, the titles and abstracts of 153 were read. Sixty-eight reports were subjected to a full-text assessment for eligibility. Eighty-five articles were excluded either due to unsuitable content or incomplete mention of the examined parameters. In all 22 articles, a systematic review and meta-analysis were incorporated. Only publications in the English language were considered. Only surgical interventions that comply with the current EAU guidelines were included [12]. The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the unique identification number CRD449835 [13].

2.3. Cochrane’s Collaboration Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias [14]

Of the selected studies, only one was prospectively randomized [15]. It was examined using Cochrane’s collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias; the result is shown in Table 1.
For all other studies, the risk of bias was considered high.

2.4. Data Extraction

Data extraction was performed by the authors. We employed a uniform data table which contained the following: general information about the publication (name, authors, journal, and year of publication), details concerning randomization, baseline characteristics of the patients (number, mean, and standard deviation of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA), antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy, preoperative and resected prostate volume, preoperative and postoperative post-void residual volume (PVR), preoperative and postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin (Hb), preoperative catheterization, preoperative and postoperative peak flow Qmax, preoperative and postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL)), operating time, postoperative time of trial without catheter (TWOC), hospitalization time, complications classified according to the Clavien–Dindo score (CDS), blood transfusions, and follow-up (FU) period.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

For the data analysis, the characteristic and functional values of the individual papers were presented descriptively by calculating means and standard deviation. Since the sample sizes for some surgical techniques were insufficient for further analysis, we refrained from a subdivision into groups at this point. In a meta-analysis, the overall mean of the individual functional values of those surgical techniques that occurred in more than one paper was calculated [16]. As the mean was used in some papers and the median in others, only those reports that employed the mean were taken into account. Not all papers provided information about the standard deviation of preoperative values; therefore, the analysis was limited to postoperative values. To include studies that contained the median and interquartile range, a sensitivity analysis [16] was performed for all studies that reported all complete values (mean and SD, or median, first quartile, and third quartile) for surgical techniques that were employed more than once. For the same techniques, a meta-analysis was performed to calculate the overall proportion [16] of blood transfusions and complications (normal and grade III–V). Due to the large number of variables, presentation by means of forest plots was avoided. Instead, the individual values were presented using boxplots and marking the overall estimate. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was employed to determine the linear relationship between function scores and age, and between the relative frequency of blood transfusions and antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications. The correlation coefficient was calculated across all surgical techniques because the data did not suffice for subgroup analysis. The two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 was used, and all analyses were carried out using the statistical software package R 4.3.2 [17].

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics of the patients included in the systematic review and meta-analysis are shown in Table 2.

3.2. Functional Outcomes (PVR, Qmax, and IPSS), Length of Stay (LOS) in the Hospital, and Length of Postoperative Catheterization (TWOC, Trial without Catheter)

The meta-analysis of postoperative functional data for the respective surgical techniques is shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. The mean follow-up (FU) period differed greatly between the studies and ranged from 1 [18] to 24 [19] months.
For comparison, the postoperative Qmax from the individual studies was 11.2 mL/sec. for ThuVEP [27], 12.9 mL/sec. for HoLAP, and 19.8 mL/sec. for Hol-TUIP [28]. The postoperative IPSS was 11.2 for TUVRP [29], 10.2 for HoLAP [28], and 6.5 for Hol-TUIP [24].

3.3. Patient Satisfaction—Preoperative and Postoperative QoL

Data concerning preoperative and postoperative QoL are shown in Table 4 and Figure 3. In the figure, the data of the meta-analysis are plotted next to those of the individual studies for comparison, when means were available. The mean follow-up (FU) period differed greatly between the studies and ranged from 1 [18] to 24 [19] months.
For comparison, the postoperative QoL from one selected study was 1.1 for TUVRP [29], 1.0 for HoLAP, and 1.7 for Hol-TUIP [28].

3.4. Perioperative and Postoperative Patient Safety, Complications, and Blood Transfusions

A positive linear relationship (r = 0.5007) was observed between the use of anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs and postoperative transfusions across all surgical techniques [19,22,23,31,32,33,34,35].
The rates of overall complications, severe complications (CDS III–IV), and blood transfusions from the meta-analysis are shown in Table 5 and Figure 4. In the figure, the data of the meta-analysis are plotted next to those of individual studies for comparison when means were available.
Not all included publications mentioned the kind of severe complications that occurred in their populations. Transurethral coagulation or bladder clot removal, myocardial infarction, testicular abscess requiring surgery, urethral or bladder neck stricture, aspiration pneumonia, and ureteral ostium injury were mentioned as serious complications. Only a few publications mentioned the number of bladder neck or urethral strictures or the continence rates after surgical interventions. Due to this, no meta-analysis was possible concerning these data.
For comparison, the rates of blood transfusion in the individual studies were 3.3% for TUVRP [29] and 1.55% for ThuLEP [33]. Rates of overall complications were 10.8% for ThuLEP [33], 6.25% for HoLAP, and 0% for Hol-TUIP [28]. Rates of severe complications (CDS III-IV) were 0% for ThuVRP [29] and 1.6% for ThuLEP [33].

3.5. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (r) between Patient Age and Selected Perioperative and Postoperative Functional and Clinical Parameters

The age of the patients was correlated with clinical and functional parameters (PPC, Table 6). A positive linear correlation was noted between age and inferior outcome on the one hand (higher PVR (r = 0.51) and IPSS (r = 0.42) and higher rates of overall complications (r = 0.54) and blood transfusions (r = 0.45) on the other. Since too few data were available for individual surgical techniques, all surgical techniques were evaluated together here.

4. Discussion

In our study, for VOPs, the postoperative Qmax ranged between 16.24 mL/sec. (TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate) and 18 mL/sec. (HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate). Values between 24.1 mL/sec. and 28 mL/sec. have been reported in the published literature [39,40]. In a direct comparison, Bertolo et al. [31] found that those <75 years had a significantly better Qmax than those >75 years after thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The same was reported by Gild et al. in a comparison of patients <60 years and those >80 years after HoLEP [38]. One of the reasons for the poorer functional outcome in VOPs may be physiological detrusor underactivity in the elderly [41].
A publication by the American Geriatrics Society in 2022 showed that the proportion of persons ≥ 80 years on oral anticoagulation (OAC) increased from 32.4% in 2011 to 43.6% in 2019 [42]. In a report published by Rühle et al. in 2019, patients under OAC who underwent bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) required longer bladder irrigation, longer transurethral catheterization, and longer hospital stays compared to the control group. Furthermore, the former patients were more likely to suffer from postoperative urinary retention [43]. As expected, in our group of VOPs, the necessity of a blood transfusion as an expression of a bleeding complication was greater among those under anticoagulation or antiplatelet medication (PCC 0.5007). The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, entitled Management of Non-neurogenic Male LUTSs [12], recommend the use of laser vaporization or enucleation of the prostate for the surgical treatment of BPO in cases of continued use of anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs. In our study, the percentage of patients on anticoagulation or antiplatelet medication was high for some laser techniques; 40% of patients after HoLEP and 41% of patients after photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) were taking such medication. The use of antiplatelet drugs and/or anticoagulants in the entire collective was between 19% (HoLAP, holmium laser ablation of the prostate) and 41 ± 13% (PVP).
Age, comorbidities, and polypharmacy make VOPs a sensitive population. According to a report published by Yonou et al. in 1999, within a mean follow-up period of 26 months after TURP, 4/13 patients had already died [44]. Some surgical techniques appear to be more appropriate than others depending on the patient’s condition. In 2022, Burtt et al. performed a meta-analysis of various endoscopic techniques for BPO in high-risk patients (defined as “large prostates ≥80 cc and/or taking antithrombotic agents and/or urinary retention and/or age >80 years and/or significant comorbidity”). Compared to TURP, laser techniques such as HoLEP, PVP, and thulium laser were associated with fewer bleeding complications, shorter LOS, and fewer re-interventions, while functional improvement was similar across all surgical techniques [11].
In our study, complication rates for VOPs ranged from 12.97% (HoLEP) to 31.80% (PVP), with severe complications (CDS III-IV) ranging from 0.91% (PVP) to 3.52% (TURP). The complication rates in our study were somewhat higher than those known from the published literature for all age groups. Riedinger et al. [45] reported a complication rate of 9% for TURP compared to 14.5% registered in our study. Yet other authors come to a different conclusion: Bertolo et al. found no difference in complication rates between those <75 years and those >75 years after ThuVEP [31]. However, the rate of severe complications (CDS III-IV) was a maximum of 3.52% for TURP. In other words, all of the studied techniques are largely safe for VOPs.
In our investigation, the LOS for TURP was longer than that for PVP or HoLEP. This confirms the data reported in the published literature. In a meta-analysis published in 2021, Castellani et al. registered a significantly longer TWOC (p < 0.00001) and LOS (p < 0.00001) for TURP than for PVP [46]. The same was true of HoLEP versus TURP with regard to TWOC and LOS [47,48]. However, a prolonged LOS or later TWOC may pose a risk for VOPs; the risk of venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism [49,50,51], pneumonia, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) [52] increases with each day.
Very old patients, or VOPs, constitute a heterogeneous group. Selecting those who will benefit from a surgical intervention for BPO is a challenge. A geriatric assessment helps to determine the physical and mental resources of these patients. The importance of a preoperative geriatric assessment in uro-oncological patients was highlighted by Zangl et al. in 2021 [53]. Yet, it is not standard practice prior to BPO surgery. The EAU guidelines on the Management of Non-neurogenic Male LUTSs [12] remain very general in this respect: “The choice of surgical technique depends on […] the patient’s concomitant diseases and whether he is sufficiently fit for anesthesia, as well as on the patient’s preferences, and the willingness to accept surgery-related specific side effects” [12]. However, data on this subject remain ambiguous. Eredics et al., in 2020, registered no difference in intraoperative and perioperative complications, TWOC, and LOS between fit and frail patients [26]. However, Labban et al. found the five-item Frailty Index, a geriatric assessment tool, to be associated with all types of complications (OR 1.50), LOS (OR 1.31), and readmission rates (OR 1.65) after different types of endoscopic BPO surgeries [54].
Although surgical outcomes are presumably worse in VOPs (when compared with the literature), the outcomes are sufficient to recommend surgery in VOPs. The patients’ priorities are surgical safety and QoL. We found that all the examined surgical methods lead to good micturition and associated QoL, especially in comparison with preoperative QoL. The latter ranged from 4.15 to 5.61, which denotes a level of satisfaction between “mostly dissatisfied [QoL = 4]” and “terrible [QoL = 6]”. Postoperatively, the mean QoL score in our study decreased to 1.31 (PVP), 1.74 (HoLEP), and 2.09 (TURP). This translates into a value between pleased [QoL = 1] and close to mostly satisfied [QoL = 2]. Other research groups have achieved similar results. In 2019, Moiroud et al. investigated 305 patients from different age groups after PVP and registered a higher QoL score in patients older than 80 years compared to younger age groups (p = 0.04). However, the mean postoperative QoL score in VOPs was 1.5 ± 1.1 [25]. In 2019, Castellani et al. found no difference between the QoL of patients under 75 and over 75 years at 1 (p = 0.4) and 12 months (p = 0.2) after thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP). Even after HoLEP, Anan et al. registered no difference between those younger and older than 75 years of age in nearly all life domains assessed on the King’s Health Questionnaire at 1, 3, and 6 months [21]. In other words, both younger and older patients may benefit equally from surgery. In addition, QoL may improve further over a period of time after surgical BPO therapy. According to Castellani et al., the quality of life of patients over 75 years of age who underwent ThuLEP improved continuously over a 12-month follow-up period (Δ −3.0 after 1 month, to −3.4 after 6 months, and −3.8 after 12 months) [33]. It must be said that the data were very heterogeneous in our meta-analysis concerning follow-up period as it ranged from 1 to 42 months.
Unfortunately, at the time of the meta-analysis, no data were available for newer interventions such as Rezum™ Water Vapor Therapy or Aquablation® of the prostate that met the inclusion criteria. The same applies for enucleation techniques such as bipolar or diode laser enucleation of the prostate beforehand. This will certainly be an interesting topic in the future. Furthermore, we are missing studies comparing outcomes between young patients vs. VOPs and comparing surgical techniques between VOPs.
The alternative to the surgical treatment of BPO is usually permanent urinary catheterization, which is frequently associated with poor QoL. Ndomba et al. examined the QoL of 202 patients with IUC using the WHOQOL-BREF tool. The median age of the patients was 69 years, and they reported poor QoL in nearly all areas of life [55]. Not only QoL suffers due to IUC; one of the most common complications of IUC is catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). The rate of CAUTIs increases with each day of catheterization [52]. Some authors have even found a correlation between IUC and increased mortality in frail patients [56].

5. Conclusions

Patients over 75 years of age experience poorer outcomes and more numerous complications such as blood transfusions after endoscopic treatment for BPO than younger patients. Nevertheless, quality of life (QoL) is noticeably improved by the relevant procedures in the elderly. Currently, it is still left to the clinical judgment and intuition of the treating physician, in conjunction with the patient’s preferences and pre-existing conditions, to decide whether or not to submit a VOP to surgical therapy. Selecting suitable patients for surgery in the presence of a benign disease such as BPO remains a challenge. Tools such as geriatric assessments deserve further investigation in this setting.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D., A.M.D., C.D. and C.R. Methodology, S.D., A.M.D. and W.L. Software, S.D. and W.L. Validation, S.D., P.T. and M.P. Formal analysis, S.D. and W.L. Investigation, S.D., C.D., P.T., Q.Z. and C.R. Data curation, S.D. and W.L. Writing—preparation of the original draft, S.D., C.D., W.L. and C.R. Writing—review and editing, E.E., A.M.D., M.P., C.E., J.P., L.L., P.T., D.O., W.L., Q.Z. and S.D. Visualization, S.D., E.E., C.D. and W.L. Supervision, A.M.D. and L.L. Project administration, A.M.D., P.T. and L.L. Funding acquisition, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the unique identification number CRD449835.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

ASAAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists Classification
BPHBenign prostatic hyperplasia
BPO Benign prostatic obstruction
CAUTIs Catheter-associated urinary tract infections
ccCubic centimeters
CDSClavien–Dindo score
FUFollow-up
HbHemoglobin
HoLAPHolmium laser ablation of the prostate
HoLEP Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate
Hol-TUIP Holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate
IPSSInternational Prostate Symptom Score
IUC Indwelling urinary catheter
KTPPotassium titanyl phosphate
LOSLength of (hospital) stay
LUTSsLower urinary tract symptoms
MM Multimorbidity
OACOral anticoagulation
OECDOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PSAProstate-specific antigen
PVPPhotoselective vaporization of the prostate
QoL Quality of life
rPearson’s correlation coefficient
ThuLEP Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate
TURP Transurethral resection of the prostate
TUVRP Transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate
TWOCTrial without catheter
USAUnited States of America

References

  1. Oelke, M.; Bachmann, A.; Descazeaud, A.; Emberton, M.; Gravas, S.; Michel, M.C.; N’Dow, J.; Nordling, J.; de la Rosette, J.J. EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur. Urol. 2013, 64, 118–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Collaborators GBDBPH. The global, regional, and national burden of benign prostatic hyperplasia in 204 countries and territories from 2000 to 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022, 3, e754–e776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Haidinger, G.; Temml, C.; Schatzl, G.; Brössner, C.; Roehlich, M.; Schmidbauer, C.P.; Madersbacher, S. Risk factors for lower urinary tract symptoms in elderly men. For the Prostate Study Group of the Austrian Society of Urology. Eur. Urol. 2000, 37, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bosch, J.L.; Bangma, C.H.; Groeneveld, F.P.; Bohnen, A.M. The long-term relationship between a real change in prostate volume and a significant change in lower urinary tract symptom severity in population-based men: The Krimpen study. Eur. Urol. 2008, 53, 819–825, discussion 825–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Berges, R.; Oelke, M. Age-stratified normal values for prostate volume, PSA, maximum urinary flow rate, IPSS, and other LUTS/BPH indicators in the German male community-dwelling population aged 50 years or older. World J. Urol. 2011, 29, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rhodes, T.; Girman, C.J.; Jacobsen, S.J.; Roberts, R.O.; Guess, H.A.; Lieber, M.M. Longitudinal prostate growth rates during 5 years in randomly selected community men 40 to 79 years old. J. Urol. 1999, 161, 1174–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Berry, S.J.; Coffey, D.S.; Walsh, P.C.; Ewing, L.L. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J. Urol. 1984, 132, 474–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Reich, O.; Gratzke, C.; Bachmann, A.; Seitz, M.; Schlenker, B.; Hermanek, P.; Lack, N.; Stief, C.G. Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: A prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J. Urol. 2008, 180, 246–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. What Are the PICO Elements in Systematic Review? Available online: https://academy.pubrica.com/research-publication/systematic-review/what-are-the-pico-elements-in-systematic-review/ (accessed on 29 July 2023).
  10. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Website. Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org (accessed on 29 April 2021).
  11. Burtt, G.; Springate, C.; Martin, A.; Woodward, E.; Zantek, P.; Al Jaafari, F.; Muir, G.; Misrai, V. The Efficacy and Safety of Laser and Electrosurgical Transurethral Procedures for the Treatment of BPO in High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review. Res. Rep. Urol. 2022, 14, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. EAU Guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. Available online: https://uroweb.org/guidelines (accessed on 2 June 2023).
  13. PROSPERO-International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Available online: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#myprospero (accessed on 29 July 2023).
  14. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. Available online: https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5928 (accessed on 8 November 2021).
  15. Fuschi, A.; Asimakopoulos, A.D.; Scalzo, S.; Martoccia, A.; Al Salhi, Y.; Suraci, P.P.; Carbone, F.; Maggi, M.; Bozzini, G.; Zucchi, A.; et al. B-TURP versus HoLEP: Peri-Operative Outcomes and Complications in Frail Elderly (>75 y.o.) Patients: A Prospective Randomized Study. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Balduzzi, S.; Rucker, G.; Schwarzer, G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evid. -Based Ment. Health 2019, 22, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2023. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  18. Tamalunas, A.; Westhofen, T.; Schott, M.; Keller, P.; Atzler, M.; Stief, C.G.; Magistro, G. The clinical value of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in octogenarians. Low. Urin. Tract Symptoms 2021, 13, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, C.H.; Lin, S.E.; Chiang, P.H. Outcome of GreenLight HPS laser therapy in surgically high-risk patients. Lasers Med. Sci. 2013, 28, 1297–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Yang, E.J.; Li, H.; Sun, X.B.; Huang, L.; Wang, L.; Gong, X.X.; Yang, Y. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Safe in patients with high surgical risk. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Anan, G.; Iwamura, H.; Mikami, J.; Kohada, Y.; Ito, J.; Kaiho, Y.; Sato, M. Efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for elderly patients: Surgical outcomes and King’s Health Questionnaire. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2021, 10, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Mmeje, C.O.; Nunez-Nateras, R.; Warner, J.N.; Humphreys, M.R. Age-stratified outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. BJU Int. 2013, 112, 982–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Piao, S.; Choo, M.S.; Kim, M.; Jeon, H.J.; Oh, S.J. Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate is Safe for Patients Above 80 Years: A Prospective Study. Int. Neurourol. J. 2016, 20, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Liu, X.; Yuan, F.; Xue Md, B. GreenLight XPS 180-W Laser Vaporization of Prostate in High-Risk Elderly Patients: A Single-Center Experience. Photobiomodulation Photomed. Laser Surg. 2020, 38, 380–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moiroud, M.; Ait Said, K.; Vaudreuil, L.; Alharbi, F.; Leon, G.; Tillou, X. Prostate Laser Photovaporization in Older People with and Without Bladder Catheter. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2019, 67, 1888–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eredics, K.; Meyer, C.; Gschliesser, T.; Lodeta, B.; Heissler, O.; Kunit, T.; Madersbacher, S. Can a Simple Geriatric Assessment Predict the Outcome of TURP? Urol. Int. 2020, 104, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hou, C.M.; Chen, C.L.; Tsui, K.H. Treatment outcomes of benign prostate hyperplasia by thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate in aging men. Urol. Sci. 2016, 27, 230–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Elshal, A.M.; Elmansy, H.M.; Elhilali, M.M. Transurethral laser surgery for benign prostate hyperplasia in octogenarians: Safety and outcomes. Urology 2013, 81, 634–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, A.H.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, H.H.; Zhang, F.; Liu, S.K.; Wang, H.; Zhang, B.H. Living status in patients over 85 years of age after TUVRP. Aging Male 2013, 16, 191–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Deyirmendjian, C.; Nguyen, D.-D.; Law, K.W.; Nguyen, A.-L.V.; Sadri, I.; Arezki, A.; Bouhadana, D.; Ibrahim, A.; Bhojani, N.; Elterman, D.S.; et al. Safety and efficacy of GreenLight PVP in octogenarians: Evaluation of the Global GreenLight Group database. World J. Urol. 2023, 41, 1133–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Bertolo, R.; Vittori, M.; Cipriani, C.; Maiorino, F.; Iacovelli, V.; Petta, F.; Toschi, N.; Ferro, M.; Panei, M.; Travaglia, S.; et al. Is thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate equally safe and effective in elderly patients? A propensity score matched analysis of early perioperative and functional outcomes. Actas Urol. Esp. (Engl. Ed.) 2021, 45, 648–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Castellani, D.; Di Rosa, M.; Pace, G.; Rubilotta, E.; Gubbiotti, M.; Pirola, G.M.; Gasparri, L.; Antonelli, A.; Dellabella, M. Comparison between thulium laser vapoenucleation and plasmakinetic resection of the prostate in men aged 75 years and older in a real-life setting: A propensity score analysis. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2021, 33, 1757–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Castellani, D.; Pirola, G.M.; Gasparri, L.; Pucci, M.; Di Rosa, M.; Carcano, G.; Saredi, G.; Dellabella, M. Are Outcomes of Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Different in Men Aged 75 and Over? A Propensity Score Analysis. Urology 2019, 132, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lotterstätter, M.; Seklehner, S.; Wimpissinger, F.; Gombos, J.; Bektic, J.; Stolzlechner, P.; Laimer, S.; Herrmann, T.R.W.; Madersbacher, S.; Lusuardi, L.; et al. Transurethral resection of the prostate in 85+ patients: A retrospective, multicentre study. World J. Urol. 2022, 40, 3015–3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Majumdar, R.; Mirheydar, H.S.; Palazzi, K.L.; Lakin, C.M.; Albo, M.E.; Parsons, J.K. Prostate laser vaporization is safe and effective in elderly men. Urol. Ann. 2015, 7, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Heiman, J.; Agarwal, D.; Komanapalli, S.; Nottingham, C.; Large, T.; Krambeck, A.; Rivera, M. Outcomes of octogenarians undergoing holmium laser enucleation of prostate. World J. Urol. 2022, 40, 1751–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Campobasso, D.; Morselli, S.; Greco, F.; De Nunzio, C.; Destefanis, P.; Fasolis, G.; Varvello, F.; Voce, S.; Reale, G.; Cai, T.; et al. Efficacy and safety profile of GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate in ≥ 75 years old patients: Results from the Italian GreenLight Laser Study Group. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2023, 35, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gild, P.; Lenke, L.; Pompe, R.S.; Vetterlein, M.W.; Ludwig, T.A.; Soave, A.; Chun, F.K.-H.; Ahyai, S.; Dahlem, R.; Fisch, M.; et al. Assessing the Outcome of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate by Age, Prostate Volume, and a History of Blood Thinning Agents: Report from a Single-Center Series of >1800 Consecutive Cases. J. Endourol. 2021, 35, 639–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ahyai, S.A.; Lehrich, K.; Kuntz, R.M. Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Eur. Urol. 2007, 52, 1456–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Ryoo, H.S.; Suh, Y.S.; Kim, T.H.; Sung, H.H.; Jeong, J.; Lee, K.S. Efficacy of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Based on Patient Preoperative Characteristics. Int. Neurourol. J. 2015, 19, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kiba, K.; Akashi, Y.; Yamamoto, Y.; Hirayama, A.; Fujimoto, K.; Uemura, H. Clinical features of detrusor underactivity in elderly men without neurological disorders. Low. Urin. Tract Symptoms 2022, 14, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lai, X.; Zhu, H.; Huo, X.; Li, Z. Polypharmacy in the oldest old (≥80 years of age) patients in China: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rühle, A.; Blarer, J.; Oehme, F.; Marini, L.; Mattei, A.; Stucki, P.; Danuser, H. Safety and Effectiveness of Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Patients Under Ongoing Oral Anticoagulation with Coumarins or Antiplatelet Drug Therapy Compared to Patients Without Anticoagulation/Antiplatelet Therapy. J. Endourol. 2019, 33, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Yonou, H.; Kagawa, H.; Oda, A.; Nagano, M.; Gakiya, M.; Niimura, K.; Hatano, T.; Ogawa, Y. [Transurethral resection of the prostate for patients with dementia]. Hinyokika Kiyo 1999, 45, 241–244. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Riedinger, C.B.; Fantus, R.J.; Matulewicz, R.S.; Werntz, R.P.; Rodriguez, J.F.; Smith, N.D. The impact of surgical duration on complications after transurethral resection of the prostate: An analysis of NSQIP data. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019, 22, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Castellani, D.; Pirola, G.M.; Rubilotta, E.; Gubbiotti, M.; Scarcella, S.; Maggi, M.; Gauhar, V.; Teoh, J.Y.-C.; Galosi, A.B. GreenLight Laser Photovaporization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Res. Rep. Urol. 2021, 13, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tan, A.; Liao, C.; Mo, Z.; Cao, Y. Meta-analysis of holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for symptomatic prostatic obstruction. Br. J. Surg. 2007, 94, 1201–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Jhanwar, A.; Sinha, R.J.; Bansal, A.; Prakash, G.; Singh, K.; Singh, V. Outcomes of transurethral resection and holmium laser enucleation in more than 60 g of prostate: A prospective randomized study. Urol. Ann. 2017, 9, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zheng, Z.; Wu, Z.; Li, K.; Zhu, Q.; Li, H.; Liu, X.; Wang, G.; Tang, Z.; Wang, Z. Incidence and Risk Factors of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients After Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP). Front. Surg. 2021, 8, 744244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Salomon, B.; Dasa, V.; Krause, P.C.; Hall, L.; Chapple, A.G. Hospital Length of Stay Is Associated with Increased Likelihood for Venous Thromboembolism After Total Joint Arthroplasty. Arthroplast. Today 2021, 8, 254–257 e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Saluja, M.; Gilling, P. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in urology: A review. Int. J. Urol. 2017, 24, 589–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Letica-Kriegel, A.S.; Salmasian, H.; Vawdrey, D.K.; Youngerman, B.E.; A Green, R.; Furuya, E.Y.; Calfee, D.P.; Perotte, R. Identifying the risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infections: A large cross-sectional study of six hospitals. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e022137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zangl, Q.; Wirth, J.; Karl, A.; Stief, C.; Zwissler, B.; Von Dossow, V. Value of Geriatric Assessment in Patients with Genitourinary Carcinoma. Oncology (Williston Park) 2021, 35, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Labban, M.; Frego, N.; Qian, Z.; Nguyen, D.-D.; Chen, C.-R.; Berk, B.D.; Lipsitz, S.R.; Bhojani, N.; Kathrins, M.; Trinh, Q.-D. Does the 5-item Frailty Index predict surgical complications of endoscopic surgical management for benign prostatic obstruction? An analysis of the ACS-NSQIP. World J. Urol. 2022, 40, 2649–2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ndomba, A.L.M.; Laisser, R.M.; Konje, E.T.; Mwanga, J.R.; Mshana, S.E. Life with an Indwelling Urinary Catheter: Experiences from Male Patients Attending the Urology Clinic at a Tertiary Hospital in Northwestern Tanzania-A Qualitative Study. Nurs. Rep. 2022, 12, 791–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Landi, F.; Cesari, M.; Onder, G.; Zamboni, V.; Barillaro, C.; Lattanzio, F.; Bernabei, R. Indwelling urethral catheter and mortality in frail elderly women living in community. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2004, 23, 697–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 01561 g001
Figure 1. Study selection according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement.
Figure 1. Study selection according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement.
Jcm 13 01561 g001
Jcm 13 01561 g002
Figure 2. Boxplots of the meta-analysis comparing the surgical techniques in regard to functional outcomes, length of hospital stay, and length of postoperative catheterization (HoLAP—holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP—holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, LOS—length of stay, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, PVR—post-void residual volume, ThuLEP—thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP—thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP—transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate, TWOC—trial without catheter).
Figure 2. Boxplots of the meta-analysis comparing the surgical techniques in regard to functional outcomes, length of hospital stay, and length of postoperative catheterization (HoLAP—holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP—holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, LOS—length of stay, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, PVR—post-void residual volume, ThuLEP—thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP—thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP—transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate, TWOC—trial without catheter).
Jcm 13 01561 g002
Jcm 13 01561 g003
Figure 3. Boxplots of the meta-analysis comparing surgical techniques in regard to mean preoperative and postoperative quality of life (HoLAP—holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP—holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, LOS—length of stay, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, PVR—post-void residual volume, QoL—quality of life, ThuLEP—thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP—thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP—transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate, TWOC—trial without catheter).
Figure 3. Boxplots of the meta-analysis comparing surgical techniques in regard to mean preoperative and postoperative quality of life (HoLAP—holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP—holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, LOS—length of stay, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, PVR—post-void residual volume, QoL—quality of life, ThuLEP—thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP—thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP—transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate, TWOC—trial without catheter).
Jcm 13 01561 g003
Jcm 13 01561 g004
Figure 4. Boxplots of the meta-analysis comparing the different surgical techniques in regard to mean blood transfusions, overall complications, severe complications, and Clavien–Dindo score III-IV as percentages (CDS—Clavien–Dindo score, HoLAP—holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP—holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, ThuLEP—thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP—thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP—transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate).
Figure 4. Boxplots of the meta-analysis comparing the different surgical techniques in regard to mean blood transfusions, overall complications, severe complications, and Clavien–Dindo score III-IV as percentages (CDS—Clavien–Dindo score, HoLAP—holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP—holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, ThuLEP—thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP—thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP—transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate).
Jcm 13 01561 g004
Table 1. Cochrane’s collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias (LR = low risk; HR = high risk; UR = uncertain risk).
Table 1. Cochrane’s collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias (LR = low risk; HR = high risk; UR = uncertain risk).
Random Sequence Generation
(Selection Bias)		Allocation Concealment
(Selection Bias)		Blinding of Participants and Personnel
(Performance Bias)		Blinding of Outcome Assessment
(Detection Bias)		Incomplete Outcome Data
(Attrition Bias)		Selective Reporting
(Reporting Bias)		Other Bias
Fuschi et al., 2022 [15]LRLRHRHRLRLRLR
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of patients included in systematic review and meta-analysis (ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification, cc = cubic centimeter, CDS = Clavien–Dindo score, FU = follow-up, Hemoglobin = Hb, HoLAP = holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP = holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP = holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, LOS = length of stay, IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score, PSA = prostate-specific antigen, PVP = photoselective vaporization of the prostate, Qmax = peak flow rates, QoL = quality of life, SD = standard deviation, ThuLEP = thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP = thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP = transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP = transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate, TWOC = trial without catheter).
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of patients included in systematic review and meta-analysis (ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification, cc = cubic centimeter, CDS = Clavien–Dindo score, FU = follow-up, Hemoglobin = Hb, HoLAP = holmium laser ablation of the prostate, HoLEP = holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, Hol-TUIP = holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate, LOS = length of stay, IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score, PSA = prostate-specific antigen, PVP = photoselective vaporization of the prostate, Qmax = peak flow rates, QoL = quality of life, SD = standard deviation, ThuLEP = thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuVEP = thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate, TURP = transurethral resection of the prostate, TUVRP = transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate, TWOC = trial without catheter).
HoLAPHoLEPHol-TUIPPVPTURPTUVRPThuLEPThuVEP
n Studies included18176113
Basic patient characteristics
Age in years84.2 (NA)81.8
(2.6)		84.3 (NA)82.9 (2.7)81.3 (3.2)87.9 (NA)79 (NA)79.9 (2.5)
ASA score 2.5
(0.7)		 2.7 (NA)3.2 (NA)2.5 (NA)
ASA III–IV in %6269
(11)		6256 (8)37 (16)50 (NA)57 (NA)47 (11)
Antiplatelet drugs and/or anticoagulants in %19 (NA)40 (10)23 (NA)41 (13)32 (28) 20 (NA)27 (7)
Preoperative prostate volume in cc32.9 (NA)92.6
(19.7)		32.4 (NA)61.9 (12.8)60.5 (9.1)61.6 (NA)64 (NA)57.4 (11.3)
Preoperative Catheterization in % 42
(13)		 44 (17)56 (36) 30 (NA)27 (0)
Preoperative laboratory and functional values
PSA in ng/mL13.1 (NA)7.4
(4.4)		4.8 (NA)5.72 (4.6)2.6 (NA) 2.9 (NA)4.5 (3.4)
Hb in g/dL 12.6
(1.6)		 14.1 (0.1)13.8 (0.5)12.3 (NA) 13.9 (NA)
PVR in mL 147.8
(91.1)		 171.5 (43.9)87 (NA) 55 (NA)111.9 (16.8)
Qmax in mL/sec. 8.9
(0.6)		 6.6 (2.0)7.7 (0.8) 7.8 (NA)8.4 (0.8)
IPSS 19.5
(2)		 21.8 (1.8)23.4 (3.6) 26 (NA)24.1 (1.4)
QoL 4.7
(0.9)		 4.1 (0.4)5.1 (0.2) 4.5 (NA)4 (NA)
Perioperative parameters and patient safety
Operating time in min.54 (NA)86.9
(8.7)		31.3 (NA)53.4 (17.5)61.7 (7.8)40.0 (NA)55 (NA)71.2 (15.0)
TWOC in days 2.7
(0.76)		 2.5 (1.3)4.4 (1.8) 2 (NA)2.5 (0.7)
LOS in days 2.9
(0.8)		 2.3 (0.9)5.7 (2.4) 3 (NA)3 (0)
Overall complications in %6
(NA)		13
(7)		0 (NA)34 (8)14 (3) 11 (NA)13 (0)
Complications
CDS
Grade III–V		 2
(2)		 1 (1)4 (1)0 (NA)2 (NA)1 (1)
Hb in g/dL 11.9
(1.2)		 13.8 (0.3)11.9 (NA) 15.4 (NA)
Blood transfusions in % 5
(6)		 2 (2)5 (3)3 (NA)2 (NA)3 (2)
Postoperative laboratory and functional parameters
PSA in ng/mL 1.4
(0.8)		 1.7 (0.3) 4.4 (NA)
PVR in mL.23.7 (NA)34.1
(12.4)		10.5 (NA)47.5 (31.9)33.5 (12.3) 41.3 (58.4)
Qmax in mL/sec.12.9 (NA)17.3
(0.8)		19.8 (NA)16.9 (1.4)17.6 (1.3) 13.4 (3.0)
IPSS10.2 (NA)6.8
(2.2)		6.5 (NA)9.2 (3.8)6.1 (0.8)11.2 (NA) 6.5 (NA)
QoL1.0 (NA)1.8
(0.7)		1.7 (NA)1.9 (0.8)2.1 (0.2)1.1 (NA) 1 (NA)
Note: If not specified, the values are mean ± SD.
Table 3. Meta-analysis of functional outcomes, length of stay, and length of postoperative catheterization (CI—confidence interval, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, IPSS—International Prostate Symptom Score, LOS—length of stay, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, PVR—post-void residual volume, QoL—quality of life, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TWOC—trial without catheter). Note: The values mentioned in the table are n or means with lower and upper boundaries of the CI in brackets. If the confidence intervals do not overlap, a significant difference between the techniques can be inferred. p-value regarding the test of heterogeneity between individual studies: + p > 0.05 (not significant), * p < 0.05 (significant). ° = two subgroups (after monopolar and bipolar TURP [20]) from one publication were meta-analyzed here, but they were marked as single cohorts.
Table 3. Meta-analysis of functional outcomes, length of stay, and length of postoperative catheterization (CI—confidence interval, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, IPSS—International Prostate Symptom Score, LOS—length of stay, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, PVR—post-void residual volume, QoL—quality of life, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, TWOC—trial without catheter). Note: The values mentioned in the table are n or means with lower and upper boundaries of the CI in brackets. If the confidence intervals do not overlap, a significant difference between the techniques can be inferred. p-value regarding the test of heterogeneity between individual studies: + p > 0.05 (not significant), * p < 0.05 (significant). ° = two subgroups (after monopolar and bipolar TURP [20]) from one publication were meta-analyzed here, but they were marked as single cohorts.
HoLEPTURPPVP
Qmax in mL/sec.18.00 +
(17.95–18.05)		16.24 +
(16.20–16.28)		18.02
(17.30–18.74)
Number of analyzed studies4 [15,21,22,23]3 * [15,20]2 * [24,25]
Patient numbers217267210
PVR in mL.25.81 +
(23.92–27.71)		24.25 +
(23.66–24.84)		20.43 +
(18.90–21.97)
Number of analyzed studies4 [15,21,22,23]4 * [15,20,26]2 [24,25]
Patient numbers217321210
IPSS8.00 +
(7.96–8.03)		6.92 +
(6.88–6.95)		10.44 +
(9.99–10.9)
Number of analyzed studies4 [15,21,22,23]3 * [15,20]2 [24,25]
Patient numbers217267210
TWOC in days3.60 +
(3.55–3.64)		5.36 *
(5.30–5.41)		2.26 +
(2.02–2.50)
Number of analyzed studies4 [15,21,22,23]4 [15,20,26]3 [19,24,25]
Patient numbers217321233
LOS in days3.59 +
(3.51–3.66)		5.30 *
(5.22–5.37)		2.92 +
(2.73–3.11)
Number of analyzed studies4 [15,21,22,23]4 ° [15,20,26]3 [19,24,25]
Patient numbers217321233
Table 4. Meta-analysis comparing surgical techniques in regard to mean preoperative and postoperative quality of life scores (CI—confidence interval; HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, QoL—quality of life, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate). Note: The values mentioned in the table are n or means, with lower and upper boundaries of the CI in brackets. If the confidence intervals do not overlap, a significant difference between the techniques can be inferred. p-value regarding the test of heterogeneity between individual studies: + p > 0.05 (not significant), * p < 0.05 (significant). ° = two subgroups (after monopolar and bipolar TURP [20]) from one publication were meta-analyzed here, but they were marked as single cohorts.
Table 4. Meta-analysis comparing surgical techniques in regard to mean preoperative and postoperative quality of life scores (CI—confidence interval; HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, QoL—quality of life, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate). Note: The values mentioned in the table are n or means, with lower and upper boundaries of the CI in brackets. If the confidence intervals do not overlap, a significant difference between the techniques can be inferred. p-value regarding the test of heterogeneity between individual studies: + p > 0.05 (not significant), * p < 0.05 (significant). ° = two subgroups (after monopolar and bipolar TURP [20]) from one publication were meta-analyzed here, but they were marked as single cohorts.
HoLEPTURPPVP
Preoperative QoL5.61 + (5.43–5.78)5.08 * (4.97–5.20)4.15 + (4.07–4.24)
Number of analyzed studies3 [21,22,23]2 ° [20]4 [19,24,25,30]
Numbers of patients121163819
Postoperative QoL1.74 + (1.52–1.95)2.09 * (1.98–2.20)1.31 + (1.25–1.37)
Number of analyzed studies3 [21,22,23]2 ° [20]2 [24,25]
Numbers of patients291267819
Table 5. Meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications and blood transfusions as percentages (CDS—Clavien–Dindo score, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, ThuVEP—transurethral vapoenucleation of the prostate). Note: The values mentioned in the table are means, with the lower and upper boundaries of the confidence interval in brackets. If the confidence intervals do not overlap, a significant difference between the techniques can be inferred. p-value regarding the test of heterogeneity between individual studies: + p > 0.05 (not significant), * p < 0.05 (significant).
Table 5. Meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications and blood transfusions as percentages (CDS—Clavien–Dindo score, HoLEP—holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, PVP—photoselective vaporization of the prostate, TURP—transurethral resection of the prostate, ThuVEP—transurethral vapoenucleation of the prostate). Note: The values mentioned in the table are means, with the lower and upper boundaries of the confidence interval in brackets. If the confidence intervals do not overlap, a significant difference between the techniques can be inferred. p-value regarding the test of heterogeneity between individual studies: + p > 0.05 (not significant), * p < 0.05 (significant).
HoLEPTURPThuVEPPVP
Overall complications12.97 *
(10.39–16.08)		14.15 +
(10.59–18.66)		13.27 +
(9.18–18.81)		31.80 +
(27.84–36.04)
Number of analyzed studies6
[15,18,22,23,28,36]		3
[15,26,32]		2
[31,32]		4
[25,28,35,37]
Numbers of patients539290194493
Complications CDS III–IV2.70 +
(1.45–4.95)		3.52 +
(2.17–5.66)		1.03 +
(0.26–4.03)		0.91 +
(0.34–2.43)
Number of analyzed studies5
[15,18,22,23,36]		4
[15,26,32,34]		2
[31,32]		3
[25,35,37]
Numbers of patients368458194429
Blood transfusions5.52 +
(3.59–8.40)		5.06
(3.39–7.49)		2.14 +
(0.82–5.46)		2.45 +
(1.65–3.64)
Number of analyzed studies4
[15,22,23,38]		4
[15,26,32,34]		2
[31,32]		4
[19,30,35,37]
Numbers of patients363458194978
Table 6. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between patient age and selected perioperative and postoperative functional and clinical parameters across all surgical techniques (CDS—Clavien–Dindo score, IPSS—International Prostate Symptom Score, LOS—length of stay, PO—postoperative, Qmax—peak flow rates, PVR—post-void residual volume, QoL—quality of life, TWOC—trial without catheter).
Table 6. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between patient age and selected perioperative and postoperative functional and clinical parameters across all surgical techniques (CDS—Clavien–Dindo score, IPSS—International Prostate Symptom Score, LOS—length of stay, PO—postoperative, Qmax—peak flow rates, PVR—post-void residual volume, QoL—quality of life, TWOC—trial without catheter).
PO PVR [15,19,20,21,24,25,26,27]0.51
PO Qmax [15,19,20,21,24,25,27]−0.14
PO IPSS [15,19,20,21,25,29,36]0.42
PO QoL [19,20,21,24,25,36]−0.43
Blood transfusions [15,19,26,29,30,31,32,33,34,37]0.45
Overall complications [15,18,25,26,29,31,32,33,34,36,37]0.54
Complications CDS III-IV [15,18,25,26,28,31,32,33,36,37]0.12
TWOC [15,19,20,21,24,25,26]−0.10
LOS [15,19,20,21,24,25,26]−0.13
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Deininger, S.; Dieplinger, A.M.; Lauth, W.; Lusuardi, L.; Törzsök, P.; Oswald, D.; Pallauf, M.; Eiben, C.; Peters, J.; Erne, E.; et al. Functional Outcome and Safety of Endoscopic Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) in Patients ≥ 75 Years of Age. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061561

AMA Style

Deininger S, Dieplinger AM, Lauth W, Lusuardi L, Törzsök P, Oswald D, Pallauf M, Eiben C, Peters J, Erne E, et al. Functional Outcome and Safety of Endoscopic Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) in Patients ≥ 75 Years of Age. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(6):1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061561

Chicago/Turabian Style

Deininger, Susanne, Anna Maria Dieplinger, Wanda Lauth, Lukas Lusuardi, Peter Törzsök, David Oswald, Maximilian Pallauf, Christian Eiben, Julia Peters, Eva Erne, and et al. 2024. "Functional Outcome and Safety of Endoscopic Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) in Patients ≥ 75 Years of Age" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 6: 1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061561

APA Style

Deininger, S., Dieplinger, A. M., Lauth, W., Lusuardi, L., Törzsök, P., Oswald, D., Pallauf, M., Eiben, C., Peters, J., Erne, E., Zangl, Q., Deininger, C., & Ramesmayer, C. (2024). Functional Outcome and Safety of Endoscopic Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) in Patients ≥ 75 Years of Age. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(6), 1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061561

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop