-
Clinical Breast Cancer Apr 2024Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a standard modality of treatment for breast cancer. The exposure of patients to drugs that effect the cells and processes involved in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a standard modality of treatment for breast cancer. The exposure of patients to drugs that effect the cells and processes involved in healing prior to reconstructive surgical procedures is a source of concern for reconstructive surgeons. The reported effects of NAC on autologous and tissue expander to implant-based breast reconstruction vary from study to study and have not been comprehensively reviewed on a large scale. There is also significant variation from study to study regarding which outcomes are evaluated. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on common and significant outcomes including total complication, reconstruction loss, and SSI (Surgical Site Infection) rates in breast reconstruction. The second aim of this study is to evaluate whether NAC has differing effects on implant-based reconstruction compared with autologous flap reconstruction. A systematic review of the literature published from 1991 to 2019 in the PubMed and Scopus library database was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of breast reconstruction in patients receiving NAC. A meta-analysis was then performed. Primary outcomes reviewed included overall complication rates, SSI rates, and total loss of reconstruction (flap necrosis or premature tissue expander or implant removal). Outcomes were analyzed using a random effects model and chi-square statistical test. Our literature search yielded 22 manuscripts with a total of 3680 patients that fit our inclusion criteria, of which 12 reported on reconstruction loss, 14 reported on SSI rates, and 10 reported on overall complication rates. There was no significant difference in overall breast reconstruction loss rate (OR 1.30, P = .35), complication rate (OR 1.21, P = .06), and rate of SSI (OR 1.28, P = .85) between NAC vs. non-NAC groups. In patients undergoing autologous flap reconstruction there were no significant differences in complication (23.4% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.076), loss of reconstruction (3.1% vs. 4.4%, P = .393), or SSI (5.3% vs. 3.4%, P = .108) rates in patients who were treated with NAC compared to those who were not. Likewise, in patients undergoing TE/implant-based reconstruction there were no significant differences in complication (19.6 vs. 24.2 P = .069), loss of reconstruction (17.4% vs. 13.3%, P = .072), or SSI (7.9% vs. 5.1%, P = .073) rates in patients who were treated with NAC compared to those who were not. NAC was not associated with any significant differences in overall complication, reconstruction loss, or SSI rates in patients receiving implant-based or autologous flap breast reconstruction. Additionally, the lack of effect of NAC on overall complication, reconstruction loss or SSI rates did not differ with or depend on the type of reconstruction.
Topics: Humans; Female; Mastectomy; Breast Implants; Breast Neoplasms; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Mammaplasty; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38228449
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.12.004 -
The Journal of Infection Dec 2018We aimed to assess infection control rates after DAIR in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following joint arthroplasty and evaluate factors associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess infection control rates after DAIR in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following joint arthroplasty and evaluate factors associated with infection control using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane databases and reference lists of relevant studies up to May 2017. Longitudinal studies conducted in patients with PJI treated exclusively by DAIR were eligible. Infection control rates were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation.
RESULTS
We included 93 articles based on 99 unique observational studies with data on 4897 PJIs treated by DAIR. The infection control rate for DAIR ranged from 11.1% to 100% with an overall pooled estimate of 61.4% (95% CI, 57.3-65.4) and a 95% prediction interval of 25.5% to 91.8%. Infection control rates remained generally similar for several relevant characteristics, except for evidence of variation by age, geographical location, type of infection and joint affected, duration of parenteral antibiotic therapy after the DAIR procedure, and period (year) of DAIR procedure.
CONCLUSIONS
The DAIR approach remains an option for the treatment of PJI as it is associated with acceptable infection control rates, particularly in acute postoperative infections and infections of the hip and shoulder joints.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Arthritis, Infectious; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Debridement; Hip Prosthesis; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30205122
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.08.017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We applied standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. We assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.22 logMAR, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.31; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time. To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cataract; Glaucoma; Panuveitis; Quality of Life; Steroids; Uveitis; Uveitis, Intermediate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36645716
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub3 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2022Strontium has been validated for potent bone-seeking and antiosteoporotic properties and elicits a potentially beneficial impact on implant osseointegration in patients... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Strontium has been validated for potent bone-seeking and antiosteoporotic properties and elicits a potentially beneficial impact on implant osseointegration in patients with osteoporosis. However, the efficacy of strontium supplementation on improving new bone formation and implant osseointegration in the presence of osteoporotic bone is still unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively assess the efficacy of strontium supplementation, encompassing oral intake and local delivery of strontium, on implant osseointegration in patients with osteoporosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Searches on electronic databases (MEDLINE or PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov) and manual searches were conducted to identify relevant preclinical animal trials up to June 2020. The primary outcomes were the percentage of bone-implant contact and bone area; the secondary outcomes were quantitative parameters of biomechanical tests and microcomputed tomography (μCT).
RESULTS
Fourteen preclinical trials (1 rabbit, 1 sheep, and 12 rat), with a total of 404 ovariectomized animals and 798 implants, were eligible for analysis. The results revealed a significant 17.1% increase in bone-implant contact and 13.5% increase in bone area, favoring strontium supplementation despite considerable heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses of both bone-implant contact and bone area exhibited similar outcomes with low to moderate heterogeneity. Results of biomechanical and μCT tests showed that strontium-enriched implantation tended to optimize the mechanical strength and microarchitecture of newly formed bone despite moderate to generally high heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available preclinical evidence, strontium supplementation, including local and systemic delivery, showed promising results for enhancing implant osseointegration in the presence of osteoporosis during 4 to 12 weeks of healing. Future well-designed standardized studies are necessary to validate the efficacy and safety of strontium supplementation and to establish a standard methodology for incorporating Sr into implant surfaces in a clinical setting.
Topics: Animals; Dental Implants; Dietary Supplements; Osseointegration; Osteoporosis; Rabbits; Rats; Sheep; Strontium; Titanium; X-Ray Microtomography
PubMed: 33589234
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.031 -
Archives of Oral Biology Aug 2016To our knowledge from indexed literature, the role of laminins in the expression of osteogenic biomarkers and osseointegration enhancement has not been systematically... (Review)
Review
To our knowledge from indexed literature, the role of laminins in the expression of osteogenic biomarkers and osseointegration enhancement has not been systematically reviewed. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the role of laminin coatings on implant surfaces in promoting osseointegration. To address the focused question, "Do laminin coatings on implant surfaces influence osseointegration?", indexed databases were searched from 1965 up to and including November 2015 using various combination of the following keywords: "Bone to implant contact"; "implant"; "laminins"; and "osseointegration". Letters to the Editor, case-reports/case-series, historic reviews, and commentaries were excluded. The pattern of the present systematic review was customized to primarily summarize the pertinent data. Nine studies were included. Six studies were prospective and were performed in animals and 5 studies were in vitro. Results from 8 studies showed that laminin coatings enhanced new bone formation around implants and/or bone-to-implant contact. One study showed that laminin coated implants surfaces did not improve osseointegration. On experimental grounds, laminin coatings seem to enhance osteogenic biomarkers expression and/or osseointegration; however, from a clinical perspective, further randomized control trials are needed to assess the role of laminin coatings in promoting osseointegration around dental implants.
Topics: Animals; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Laminin; Osseointegration; Osteogenesis; Prospective Studies; Surface Properties; Titanium
PubMed: 27164563
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2016.05.005 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Feb 2024The presence of peri‑implant inflammation including peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis, is a crucial factor that impacts the long-term stability and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The presence of peri‑implant inflammation including peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis, is a crucial factor that impacts the long-term stability and success of dental implants. This review aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjuvant therapy option for managing peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases (no time limitation). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
RESULTS
Of 322 eligible articles, 14 studies were included in this review. The heterogeneity and poor quality of the articles reviewed prevented a meta-analysis. The reviewed articles used a light source (60 s, 1 session) with a wavelength of 635 to 810 nm for optimal tissue penetration. These studies showed improved clinical parameters such as probing depth, bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index after aPDT treatment. However, in smokers, BOP increased after aPDT. Compared to conventional therapy, aPDT had a longer-term antimicrobial effect and reduced periopathogens like Porphyromonas gingivalis, as well as inflammatory factors such as Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α). No undesired side effects were reported in the studies.
CONCLUSION
Although the reviewed articles had limitations, aPDT showed effectiveness in improving peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis. It is recommended as an adjunctive strategy for managing peri‑implant diseases, but further high-quality research is needed for efficacy and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Photochemotherapy; Peri-Implantitis; Mucositis; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Infective Agents
PubMed: 38278339
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.103990 -
Denosumab and osteonecrosis of the jaw. A systematic analysis of events reported in clinical trials.Clinical Oral Implants Research Mar 2016The aims of this meta-analysis were (i) to perform a systematic review of the relation between treatment with denosumab and the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this meta-analysis were (i) to perform a systematic review of the relation between treatment with denosumab and the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and (ii) to obtain information on dosage, first event apparition, and treatment approaches for patients with ONJ related to denosumab.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature was performed in the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases, identifying randomized clinical trials that evaluate the adverse effects of denosumab. The overall incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ONJ were calculated employing fixed- and random-effects models, according to the heterogeneity of the studies included.
RESULTS
A total of 8963 patients with a variety of solid tumors reported in seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic analysis. The overall incidence of ONJ in patients with cancer receiving denosumab was 1.7% [95% CI: 0.9-3.1%]. The use of denosumab was associated with a significantly increased risk of ONJ in comparison with bisphosphonates (BPs)/placebo treatment (RR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.05-2.48, P = 0.029). Subgroup analysis based on controlled therapies demonstrated an increased risk of ONJ in denosumab therapy, when compared with BPs (RR 1.48, 95% CI: 0.96-2.29, P = 0.078) or placebo (RR 16.28, 95% CI: 1.68-158.05, P = 0.017). Similar results were observed for prostate cancer (RR 3.358, 95% CI: 1.573-7.166, P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
Denosumab combined with risk factors such as dental extraction, poor oral hygiene, use of removable apparatus, and chemotherapy may favor the development of ONJ.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25639776
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12556 -
The American Journal of Cardiology Sep 2023Intracoronary imaging (ICI) facilitates stent implant by characterizing the lesion calcification, providing accurate vessel dimensions, and optimizing the stent results.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intracoronary Imaging Versus Coronary Angiography Guidance for Implantation of Second and Third Generation Drug Eluting Stents in a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Intracoronary imaging (ICI) facilitates stent implant by characterizing the lesion calcification, providing accurate vessel dimensions, and optimizing the stent results. We sought to investigate the outcomes of routine ICI versus coronary angiography (CA) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second- and third-generation drug-eluting stents. A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases was conducted from their inception to July 16, 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing routine ICI with CA. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary outcomes of interest were target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and cardiac and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 9 randomized controlled trials with 5,879 patients (2,870 ICI-guided and 3,009 CA-guided PCI) met the inclusion criteria. The ICI and CA groups were similar in demographic characteristics and co-morbidity profiles. Compared with CA, patients in the routine ICI-guided PCI group had lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, p <0.0001), target lesion revascularization (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83, p = 0.002), target vessel revascularization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.00, p = 0.05), and myocardial infarction (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in stent thrombosis or cardiac/all-cause mortality between the 2 strategies. In conclusion, routine ICI-guided PCI strategy, compared with CA guidance alone, is associated with improved clinical outcomes, largely driven by lower repeat revascularization.
Topics: Humans; Drug-Eluting Stents; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Disease; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Risk Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Myocardial Infarction; Stents; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37423173
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.06.073 -
Medicine Nov 2017Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Recently, biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have been approved to be used as an alternative to DP-DES, with potential benefits. We aimed to systematically compare BP-DES with the first-generation DP-DES using a large number of randomized patients.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with first-generation DP-DES. The main endpoints were the long-term (≥2 years) adverse clinical outcomes that were reported with these 2 types of DES. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Twelve trials with a total number of 13,480 patients (7730 and 5750 patients were treated by BP-DES and first-generation DP-DES, respectively) were included. During a long-term follow-up period of ≥2 years, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were not significantly different between these 2 groups with OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07; P = .16, I = 0%, OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-2.27; P = .98, I = 0%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.11; P = .37, I = 0% and OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67; P = .65, I = 0%, respectively. Long-term total stent thrombosis (ST), definite ST, and probable ST were also not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES with OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.18; P = .22, I = 0%, OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43-1.18; P = .19, I = 0% and OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.08; P = .53, I = 6%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Long-term mortality, MI, TLR, MACEs, and ST were not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES. However, the follow-up period was restricted to only 3 years in this analysis.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Coronary Artery Disease; Drug-Eluting Stents; Humans; Polymers; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29382011
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008878 -
European Urology Focus Sep 2023Office-based treatments are increasingly offered as an optional step to replace medical treatment or delay surgery for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Office-based treatments are increasingly offered as an optional step to replace medical treatment or delay surgery for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Nevertheless, little is known regarding the risks of retreatment.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding retreatment rates after water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTIND) procedures.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A literature search was conducted up to June 2022 using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The primary outcomes were the rates of pharmacologic and surgical retreatment during follow-up.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 36 studies including 6380 patients met our inclusion criteria. Surgical and minimally invasive retreatment rates were generally well reported in the studies included and reached up to 5% after 3 yr of follow-up for iTIND, and up to 4% for WVTT and 13% for PUL after 5 yr of follow-up. The types and rates of pharmacologic retreatment are poorly reported in the literature, with the latter reaching up to 7% after 3 yr of follow-up for iTIND, and up to 11% after 5 yr of follow-up for WVTT and PUL. The main limitations of our review are the unclear to high risk of bias in most of the studies included and the lack of long-term (>5 yr) data on retreatment risks.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results highlight the low retreatment rates at mid-term follow-up after office-based treatments for LUTS, supporting the development of these strategies as an intermediate step between BPH medication and conventional surgery. Pending more robust data with longer follow-up, these results should be used to improve patient information and facilitate shared decision-making.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our review highlights the low risk of mid-term retreatment after office-based treatments for benign enlargement of the prostate that is affecting urinary function. For well-selected patients, these results support the increasing use of office-based treatment as an intermediate option before conventional surgery.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Prostate; Retreatment; Urethra; Prostheses and Implants; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
PubMed: 36906484
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.03.004