-
Andrology Sep 2017The impact of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5I) treatment modality (on-demand vs. daily), PDE5I half-life and time from surgery to PDE5I prescription on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Erectile function recovery in men treated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor administration after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized trials with trial sequential analysis.
The impact of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5I) treatment modality (on-demand vs. daily), PDE5I half-life and time from surgery to PDE5I prescription on the achievement of drug-assisted erectile function (EF) recovery is uncertain. We systematically reviewed published randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We performed meta-analyses of data on 2317 men treated with PDE5Is after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP). A PubMed and SCOPUS search was performed for trials published from 1 January 1969 to 30 June 2016. PDE5Is are effective in achieving drug-assisted recovery of erectile function (EF). From a statistical standpoint, these studies were subjected to Trial Sequential Analysis to determine whether the pooled data were adequately powered to verify the study outcomes. On-demand treatment with PDE5Is was significantly better than daily treatment in recovering drug-assisted EF. This effect was maintained even when the drugs were stratified according with half-life. Although not based on head-to-head trials, Avanafil used on-demand was the most effective PDE5I in recovering drug-assisted EF. Whereas tadalafil was equally effective when used both on-demand and daily, vardenafil significantly improved drug-assisted EF recovery only when used on-demand. The start of PDE5I treatment six months or more after surgery compared to treatment started earlier did not negatively affect the rate of drug-assisted EF recovery or the possibility to have successful intercourse based on the Sexual Encounter Profile question-3 (SEP-3). Current trials do not support the hypothesis that PDE5I use recovers drug-unassisted EF, although chronic low-dose tadalafil administration may help to preserve erectile tissue integrity. Potential shortcomings in the trials design may partially explain these disappointing results and several questions concerning the recovery of drug-unassisted EF remain unanswered. Thus, there is a need for well-designed new RCTs requiring changes in the timing of PDE5I administration as well as in the dose and the treatment duration.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Prostatectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28787547
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12403 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach (standard RALP) that mimics open retropubic prostatectomy by dissecting the so-called space of Retzius anterior to the bladder. An alternative, Retzius-sparing (or posterior approach) RALP (RS-RALP) has been described, which is reported to have better continence outcomes but may be associated with a higher risk of incomplete resection and positive surgical margins (PSM).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of RS-RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to June 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials where participants were randomized to RS-RALP or standard RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery six and 12 months after surgery, potency recovery 12 months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and urinary and sexual function quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified six records of five unique randomized controlled trials, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. Mean age of participants was 64.6 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. About 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1 % had cT2c disease. Primary outcomes RS-RALP probably improves continence within one week after catheter removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 2.14; I = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at three months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68; I = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There is probably little to no difference in continence recovery at 12 months after surgery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04; I = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 222; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 982 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 10 more men per 1000 (29 fewer to 39 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on potency recovery 12 months after surgery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.80; studies = 1; participants = 55; very low-certainty evidence). RS-RALP may increase PSMs (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.20; I = 0%; studies = 3; participants = 308; low-certainty evidence) indicating a higher risk for prostate cancer recurrence. Assuming 129 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have positive margins, this corresponds to 123 more men per 1000 (25 more to 284 more) with PSMs. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on BCRFS compared to standard RALP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.60; I = 32%; studies = 2; participants = 218; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to six months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. Downsides of RS-RALP may be higher positive margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on BCRFS and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Kallikreins; Laparoscopy; Male; Margins of Excision; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Penile Erection; Postoperative Complications; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 32813279
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013641.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold-standard treatment for alleviating urinary symptoms and improving urinary flow in men with symptomatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold-standard treatment for alleviating urinary symptoms and improving urinary flow in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, the morbidity of TURP approaches 20%, and less invasive techniques have been developed for treating BPH. Transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) is an alternative, minimally-invasive treatment that delivers microwave energy to produce coagulation necrosis in prostatic tissue. This is an update of a review last published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 31 May 2021, with no restrictions by language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of participants with BPH who underwent TUMT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments of the certainty of the evidence (CoE). We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short-term and beyond 12 months as long-term. Our main outcomes included: urologic symptoms scores, quality of life, major adverse events, retreatment, and ejaculatory and erectile function.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we identified no new RCTs, but we included data from studies excluded in the previous version of this review. We included 16 trials with 1919 participants, with a median age of 69 and moderate lower urinary tract symptoms. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was moderate-to-low, due to an overall high risk of bias across studies and imprecision (few participants and events). TUMT versus TURP Based on data from four studies with 306 participants, when compared to TURP, TUMT probably results in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 2.03; moderate certainty). There is likely to be little to no difference in the quality of life (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.47; 1 study, 136 participants, moderate certainty). TUMT likely results in fewer major adverse events (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; 6 studies, 525 participants, moderate certainty); based on 168 cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 135 fewer (153 to 96 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. TUMT, however, probably results in a large increase in the need for retreatment (risk ratio (RR) 7.07, 95% CI 1.94 to 25.82; 5 studies, 337 participants, moderate certainty) (usually by repeated TUMT or TURP); based on zero cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 90 more (40 to 150 more) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. There may be little to no difference in erectile function between these interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.63; 5 studies, 337 participants; low certainty). However, TUMT may result in fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.53; 4 studies, 241 participants; low certainty). TUMT versus sham Based on data from four studies with 483 participants we found that, when compared to sham, TUMT probably reduces urologic symptom scores using the IPSS at short-term follow-up (MD -5.40, 95% CI -6.97 to -3.84; moderate certainty). TUMT may cause little to no difference in the quality of life (MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.77; 2 studies, 347 participants; low certainty) as measured by the IPSS quality-of-life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a worse quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effects on major adverse events, since most studies reported no events or isolated lesions of the urinary tract. TUMT may also reduce the need for retreatment compared to sham (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; 2 studies, 82 participants, low certainty); based on 194 retreatments per 1000 men in the sham group, this corresponds to 141 fewer (178 to 23 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. We are very uncertain of the effects on erectile and ejaculatory function (very low certainty), since we found isolated reports of impotence and ejaculatory disorders (anejaculation and hematospermia). There were no data available for the comparisons of TUMT versus convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy, prostatic urethral lift, prostatic arterial embolization or temporary implantable nitinol device.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
TUMT provides a similar reduction in urinary symptoms compared to the standard treatment (TURP), with fewer major adverse events and fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction at short-term follow-up. However, TUMT probably results in a large increase in retreatment rates. Study limitations and imprecision reduced the confidence we can place in these results. Furthermore, most studies were performed over 20 years ago. Given the emergence of newer minimally-invasive treatments, high-quality head-to-head trials with longer follow-up are needed to clarify their relative effectiveness. Patients' values and preferences, their comorbidities and the effects of other available minimally-invasive procedures, among other factors, can guide clinicians when choosing the optimal treatment for this condition.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Aged; Ejaculation; Humans; Hyperthermia, Induced; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Microwaves; Penile Erection; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Radiofrequency Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Transurethral Resection of Prostate
PubMed: 34180047
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004135.pub4 -
Archivos Espanoles de Urologia Jul 2021Over 50% of elderly men and 70% of male cardiac patients suffer from erectile dysfunction (ED). Although pharmacotherapy is effective and safe, it only brings a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of low energy shock-wave therapy generated using an electrohydraulic device in the treatment of ED: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
Over 50% of elderly men and 70% of male cardiac patients suffer from erectile dysfunction (ED). Although pharmacotherapy is effective and safe, it only brings a short-term improvement and may cause side effects. Low energy shock-wave therapy (LESWT) is a promising causative modality for the treatment of ED. The evidence is still limited with different results obtained using different devices. The aim of this work was to evaluate evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy of LESWT generated by an electrohydraulic unit for the treatment of ED.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed on May 20th, 2018 and supplemented by a Google search of grey literature, as well as a hand search of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Out of 34 studies, 5 studies on 354 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis.
RESULTS
The studies evaluated an abridged International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), the Erectile Hardness Scale (EHS) and Flow-Mediated Dilatation (FMD). The meta-analysis revealed that LESWT improved the IIEF-5 score (mean difference: 5.16; 95% CI, 1.39-8.93; p=0.0073) and EHS score (risk difference:0.72; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80; p<0.001). Reporting of FMD was inconsistent and not analyzed. The meta-analysis of studies conducted with electrohydraulic devices showed greater benefits to patients in comparison to the meta-analyses of heterogeneous studies conducted using various devices for generating shock waves.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence exists that LESWT generated with an electrohydraulic unit is effective. Further research is needed in order to evaluate this method in different patient populations and for the long-term.
Topics: Aged; Erectile Dysfunction; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34219064
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019New, minimally invasive surgeries have emerged as alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms...
BACKGROUND
New, minimally invasive surgeries have emerged as alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Aquablation is a novel, minimally invasive, water-based therapy, combining image guidance and robotics for the removal of prostatic tissue.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of Aquablation for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 11 February 2019, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, as well as non-randomised observational prospective studies with concurrent comparison groups in which participants with BPH who underwent Aquablation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage, and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments of the certainty of the evidence. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomisation as short-term and beyond 12 months as long-term.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one RCT with 184 participants comparing Aquablation to TURP. The mean age and International Prostate Symptom Score were 65.9 years and 22.6, respectively. The mean prostate volume was 53.2 mL. We only found short-term data for all outcomes based on a single randomised trial.Primary outcomesUp to 12 months, Aquablation likely results in a similar improvement in urologic symptom scores to TURP (mean difference (MD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.51 to 2.39; participants = 174; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence certainty by one level due to study limitations. Aquablation may also result in similar quality of life when compared to TURP (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.78; participants = 174, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence certainty by two levels due to study limitations and imprecision. Aquablation may result in little to no difference in major adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.26; participants = 181, very low-certainty evidence) but we are very uncertain of this finding. This would correspond to 15 fewer major adverse events per 1000 participants (95% CI 64 fewer to 116 more). We downgraded the evidence certainty by one level for study limitations and two levels for imprecision.Secondary outcomesUp to 12 months, Aquablation may result in little to no difference in retreatments (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.18 to 15.83; participants = 181, very low-certainty evidence) but we are very uncertain of this finding. This would correspond to 10 more retreatments per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 fewer to 228 more). We downgraded the evidence certainty by one level due to study limitations and two levels for imprecision.Aquablation may result in little to no difference in erectile function as measured by International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire Erectile Function domain compared to TURP (MD 2.31, 95% CI -0.63 to 5.25; participants = 64, very low-certainty evidence), and may cause slightly less ejaculatory dysfunction than TURP, as measured by Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MD 2.57, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.53; participants = 121, very low-certainty evidence). However, we are very uncertain of both findings. We downgraded the evidence certainty by two levels due to study limitations and one level for imprecision for both outcomes.We did not find other prospective, comparative studies comparing Aquablation to TURP or other procedures such as laser ablation, enucleation, or other minimally invasive therapies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up, the effect of Aquablation on urological symptoms is probably similar to that of TURP (moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on quality of life may also be similar (low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether patients undergoing Aquablation are at higher or lower risk for major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether Aquablation may result in little to no difference in erectile function but offer a small improvement in preservation of ejaculatory function (both very low-certainty evidence). These conclusions are based on a single study of men with a prostate volume up to 80 mL in size. Longer-term data and comparisons with other modalities appear critical to a more thorough assessment of the role of Aquablation for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Ejaculation; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Middle Aged; Organ Size; Penile Erection; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Retreatment; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Water
PubMed: 30759311
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013143.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up until 25 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs. MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age, IPSS, and prostate volume of participants were 66 years, 22.8, and 72.8 mL, respectively. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. PAE versus TURP We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up and one RCT with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months). Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.40 to 3.50; 369 participants; 6 RCTs; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. There may be little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.68; 309 participants; 5 RCTs; I² = 56%; low-certainty evidence) as measured by the IPSS quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively. While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.10; 250 participants; 4 RCTs; I² = 26%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE may increase re-treatments (RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.98; 204 participants; 3 RCTs; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Based on 18 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 47 more (0 more to 214 more) per 1000 men undergoing PAE. We are very uncertain about the effects on erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -6.35 to 6.29; 129 participants; 2 RCTs; I² = 78%; very low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Index of Erectile Function at 5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function. NRS evidence when available yielded similar results. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 260 participants; 1 NRS; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on urologic symptom scores (MD 0.30, 95% CI -3.17 to 3.77; 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to TURP. Quality of life may be similar (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.89; 95 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.13; 107 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may increase re-treatment rates (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.29; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence); based on 56 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group. this corresponds to 143 more (25 more to 430 more) per 1000 men in the PAE group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP up to 12 months (short-term follow-up), PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE may increase re-treatment rates. We are uncertain about erectile function, but PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Longer term (follow-up of 13 to 24 months), we are very uncertain as to how both procedures compare with regard to urologic symptom scores, but quality of life appears to be similar. We are very uncertain about major adverse events but PAE may increase re-treatments. We did not find longer term evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the main outcomes of this review was low or very low, signalling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.
Topics: Aged; Arteries; Ejaculation; Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Penile Erection; Postoperative Complications; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33368143
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012867.pub2