A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with transurethral resection of the prostate for patients with prostate volume less than 100 mL or 100 g

Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for patients with prostate volume less than 100 mL or 100 g.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to July 2021 to collect randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. We synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), mean difference (MD), and standardized mean differences (SMD).

Results: A total of eight studies were included, involving 764 patients, 384 patients in the HoLEP group and 380 patients in the TURP group. The meta-analysis showed that the catheterization time (SMD =-1.44; 95% CI: -2.17 to -0.70; P=0.0001), hospital stay (SMD =-1.01; 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.44; P=0.0005), haemoglobin loss (MD =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.07; P=0.01), and transfusion rate (RR =0.16; 95% CI: 0.05-0.49; P=0.001) in the HoLEP group were lower than those in the TURP group. In addition, the 12-month postvoid residual volume (PVR) of the HoLEP group (MD =-9.93 95% CI: -18.59 to -1.27; P=0.02) were superior to the TURP group. Although the operation time of the HoLEP group was longer (MD =17.89; 95% CI: 9.18-26.60; P<0.0001), more tissues were removed (SMD =0.47; 95% CI: 0.10-0.85; P=0.01).

Discussion: Compared with TURP, HoLEP has a shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, with more tissue removed, a lower blood transfusion rate and better results in the short-term follow-up after surgery. Therefore, HoLEP has better efficacy and safety in the treatment of small- and medium-sized benign prostatic obstruction. Our results found that HoLEP is also suitable for patients with prostate volume <100 mL/100 g, suggesting that it is necessary to redefine the prostate size that is best for HoLEP. Overall, the certainty of evidence was assessed to be moderate to low due to potential risk of bias and inconsistent outcome indicators in some studies. More data on the efficacy of HoLEP and TURP on small- and medium-sized prostates are needed to determine the optimal prostate volume of HoLEP.