Systematically Reviev And Evaluate The Efficacy And Safety Of Photoselective Vaporization Of The Prostate

Objective: To clarify the evidence of safe and efficient use ofphotoselective vaporization of the prostate（PVP） in clinical treatment forbenign prostate hyperplasia.Method: Electronic databases (VIP, WANFANG, CBM, CNKI,PUBMED, EMBASE) were searched from their establishment to2013forcollecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PVP vs. TURP for thetreatment of BPH. After study selection, two reviewers assessed the studiesindependently. Data was calculated with RevMan5.0software.Result: Eight studies (involving886patients) were included in ourmeta-analysis. PVP group included450patients and TURP group included436patients. Meta-analysis showed that compared with the TURP group,PVP group had the advantages such as lesser bleeding（WMD-1.06，95%CI(-1.26,-0.86)；P＜0.00001）, shorter length of hospitalization（WMD-2.31，95%CI(-2.60,-2.01)；P＜0.00001） and catheterization （WMD-38.15，95%CI(-45.94,-30.37)；P＜0.00001）. But the operation time waslonger than TURP（WMD12.09，95%CI(4.66,19.51)；P=0.001）.The results also showed that PVP had significant better effects on risk reduction ofTURS and blood transfusion(OR0.17,95%CI0.04-0.77; P＜0.00001；OR0.10,95%CI0.03-0.29; P＜0.0001). There was no statistical difference inimproving of IPSS, Qmax and PVR（WMD1.15，95%CI(-1.0,3.37);P=0.31；WMD-0.53，95%CI(-3.17,2.12); P=0.70；WMD16.72，95%CI(-21.5,54.93); P=0.39）.Conclusion: PVP is a safe and effective surgical treatment of BPH, andhas the advantages as lesser bleeding, shorter length of hospitalization andcatheterization. In addition, it shows the same effects as TURP in follow-upvisits.