Minimally invasive non-laser thermal techniques for prostatectomy: a systematic review. The ASERNIP-S review group

ASERNIP-S: international trend setting

The Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures--Surgical (ASERNIP-S) came into being 10 years ago to provide health technology assessments specifically tailored towards new surgical techniques and technologies. It was and remains the only organisation in the world to focus on this area of research. Most funding has been provided by the Australian Government Department of Health, and assessments have helped inform the introduction of new surgical techniques into Australia. ASERNIP-S is a project of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The ASERNIP-S program employs a diverse range of methods including systematic reviews, technology overviews, assessments of new and emerging surgical technologies identified by horizon scanning, and audit. Support and guidance for the program is provided by Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. ASERNIP-S works closely with consumers to produce health technology assessments and audits, as well as consumer information to keep patients fully informed of research. Since its inception, the ASERNIP-S program has developed a strong international profile through the production of over 60 reports on evidence-based surgery, surgical technologies and audit. The work undertaken by ASERNIP-S has evolved from assessments of the safety and efficacy of procedures to include guidance on policies and surgical training programs. ASERNIP-S needs to secure funding so that it can continue to play an integral role in the improvement of quality of care both in Australia and internationally.

Is the minimally invasive treatment as good as transurethral resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia?

Despite the development of new technologies, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still considered the gold standard for surgical treatment of the benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). In general, new minimally invasive treatments have not demonstrated better outcomes than TURP in evidence based medicine trials published to date, and should be reserved for patients who prefer to avoid surgery, who are unsuitable candidates for surgery or who no longer respond favorably to medication. TUMT and TUNA appears to be more effective than medical therapy but less effective than TURP. Both treatments can be given under topical anesthesia or local prostatic or perineal block. Efficacy of transurethral vaporization appears similar to TURP, but the studies are short-term and the glands operated on are relatively small. In patients with small prostates, the transurethral incision of the prostate can also be a good option, associated with less morbidity than TURP. Bipolar resection of the prostate is similar to TURP in effectiveness, but the data are inconclusive regarding blood loss, length of catheterization and hospital stay. Long-term comparative trials are needed to determine if the minimally invasive therapies are superior to standard TURP.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Transurethral Needle Ablation in symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) constitutes a major clinical problem. Minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of symptomatic BPH include Transurethral Needle Ablation (TUNA), but it is unclear what impact this technique has on the disease and its role among other currently available therapeutic options. The objective of this study is to ascertain the efficacy and safety of TUNA in the treatment of BPH.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature until January 2005 and meta-analysis of clinical studies assessing TUNA in symptomatic BPH. Studies were critically appraised. Estimates of effect were calculated according to the random-effects model.

RESULTS

35 studies (9 comparative, 26 non-comparative) were included. Although evidence was limited by methodological issues, the analysis of relevant outcomes indicates that while TUNA significantly improves BPH parameters with respect to baseline, it does not reach the same level of efficacy as TURP in respect to all subjective and objective variables. Further, its efficacy declines in the long-term with a rate of secondary-treatment significantly higher than of TURP [OR: 7.44 (2.47, 22.43)]. Conversely, TUNA seems to be a relatively safe technique and shows a lower rate of complications than TURP [OR:0.14 (0.05, 0.14)] with differences being particularly noteworthy in terms of postoperative bleeding and sexual disorders. Likewise, TUNA has fewer anesthetic requirements and generates a shorter hospital stay than TURP [WMD: -1.9 days (-2.75, -1.05)]. Scarce data and lack of replication of comparisons hinder the assessment of TUNA vs. other local therapies. No comparisons with medical treatment were found.

CONCLUSION

The body of evidence on which TUNA has been introduced into clinical practice is of only moderate-low quality. Available evidence suggest that TUNA is a relatively effective and safe technique that may eventually prove to have a role in selected patients with symptomatic BPH. TUNA significantly improves BPH parameters with respect to baseline values, but it does not reach the same level of efficacy and long-lasting success as TURP. On the other hand, TUNA seems to be superior to TURP in terms of associated morbidity, anesthetic requirements and length of hospital stay. With respect to the role of TUNA vis-à-vis other minimally invasive therapies, the results of this review indicate that there are insufficient data to define this with any degree of accuracy. Overall cost-effectiveness and the role of TUNA versus medical treatment need further evaluation.