Scholarlink

<p>Porto et al.‘s systematic review and meta-analysis of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) outcomes across different regions reveals significant improvements in IPSS, Qmax, and postvoid residual (PVR) volume. However, the study is limited by high heterogeneity in PVR outcomes, with substantial variability in clot evacuation, irritative symptoms, and incontinence, suggesting inconsistencies in patient populations, methodologies, and surgical techniques. The study fails to address key confounders such as prostate size, age at surgery, and the use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, which could significantly influence TURP’s outcomes. Additionally, the analysis overlooks the rise of newer treatment alternatives like endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP), which offers better outcomes for high-risk patients. Despite presenting valuable data, the lack of standardization, the omission of emerging treatment options, and failure to consider clinical guidelines limit the generalizability and applicability of Porto et al.‘s conclusions on TURP as the gold standard for benign prostatic obstruction.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

RE: transurethral resection of the prostate across continents: a meta-analysis evaluating quality of gold standard in the twenty-first century

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月7日

查看全文
  • Meng San Chea,
  • Etienne Xavier Keller,
  • Pieter Uvin,
  • Vincent De Coninck

摘要

Porto et al.‘s systematic review and meta-analysis of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) outcomes across different regions reveals significant improvements in IPSS, Qmax, and postvoid residual (PVR) volume. However, the study is limited by high heterogeneity in PVR outcomes, with substantial variability in clot evacuation, irritative symptoms, and incontinence, suggesting inconsistencies in patient populations, methodologies, and surgical techniques. The study fails to address key confounders such as prostate size, age at surgery, and the use of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, which could significantly influence TURP’s outcomes. Additionally, the analysis overlooks the rise of newer treatment alternatives like endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP), which offers better outcomes for high-risk patients. Despite presenting valuable data, the lack of standardization, the omission of emerging treatment options, and failure to consider clinical guidelines limit the generalizability and applicability of Porto et al.‘s conclusions on TURP as the gold standard for benign prostatic obstruction.