Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the first choice for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, Transurethral split of prostate (TUSP) also seems to have clear clinical efficacy and clinical promotion value. To better clarify the potential and limitations of this treatment of prostate hyperplasia. This study objectively evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of TUSP. METHODS: The Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), Wanfang (Wanfang data), and SinoMed databases were searched for relevant studies. We then used Revman Manager 5.3 to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of TUSP versus the classic surgical procedures commonly used in the clinic. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies involving 592 patients were included. The combined data showed that TUSP can shorten the operation time [MD: -33.68; 95% CI: - 38.45 to - 28.91; P < 0.001], reduce intraoperative blood loss [MD: -56.06; 95% CI: - 62.68 to - 49.43; P < 0.001], shorten the time of indwelling catheter [MD: -1.83; 95% CI: - 1.99 to - 1.67; P < 0.001], shorten the postoperative hospital stay length [MD: -1.61; 95% CI: - 1.90 to - 1.32; P < 0.001] and improved postoperative quality of life score (QOL) [MD: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.29; P = 0.02] compared to traditional surgical approaches. There were no statistically significant differences in international prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), residual urine volume (RUV), or complications between TUSP and traditional approached. CONCLUSION: TUSP can be an effective alternative for clinical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Given the limitations of the included studies, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to validate or update the results of this analysis.