Introduction

1. No. 094 Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review with meta-analysis Thangasamy IA1, Chalasani V2, Bachmann A3, Woo HH4. 1 Hornsby Ku-Ring-Gai Hospital, Australia, 2NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, 3Department of Urology, University of Basel, Switzerland, 4University of Sydney, Australia Results Peri-operative Data T: favours TURP, P: favours PVP, p<0.05 for all results above Post-operative Complications * p<0.05, Risk Ratio <1 favours PVP Functional Outcomes Reported mean maximum flow rate, mean IPSS score, and p value when comparing PVP and TURP at final follow up for each study. NS: Not significant (p value not reported). T:in favour of TURP, *reported as median NR: not reported, ST: statistically significant in favour of TURP (p value not reported) Introduction Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) is increasingly being used to treat symptomatic outflow obstruction due to its safety profile. Several randomised controlled trials (RCT) compare PVP versus TURP, the current gold standard [1-9]. Aim To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of PVP versus TURP for treatment of LUTS secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). • Methods • We searched biomedical literature databases for RCTs from 2002-2012 that compared PVP to TURP. Data was extracted by two independent reviewers. Trial validity was examined using the Jadad score. • Results • 9 RCTs (889 participants) • NR: not reported References LukacsB, Loeffler J, Bruyere F, et al. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight 120-W laser compared with monopolartransurethral resection of the prostate: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. EurUrol 2012, doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.052 Pereira-CorreiaJA, de Moraes Sousa KD, Santos JBP, et al. Greenlight HPSTM 120-W laser vaporization vs transurethral resection of the prostate (<60 mL): a 2-year randomized double-blind prospective urodynamic investigation. Br J Urol2012, doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10878.x CapitánC, Blázquez C, Martin MD, Hernández V, de la Peña E, Llorente C. Greenlight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. EurUrol 2011;60:29-36 Al-Ansari A, Younes N, Sampige VP. GreenlightHPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm follow-up. EurUrol 2010;58:29-38 16. Bouchier-Hayes DM, Van Appledorn S, Bugeja P, et al. A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs transurethral prostatectomy, with 1-year follow up. Br J Urol 2010;105:964-9 Schwartz J, Hauser J, Fateri F, Iselin CE. Preliminary results of a randomized prospective study comparing endovaporisation of benign prostatic hyperplasia (KTP-80 laser) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). EurUrolSuppl 2009;8:265 SkolarikosA, Alivizatos G, Chalikopoulos D, et al. 80W PVP versus TURP: results of a randomized prospective study at 12 months of follow-up. J Urol 2008; 179(4): 628 Horasanli K, Silay MS, Altay B, et al. Photoselective potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 70ml: a short term prospective randomized trial. Urology 2008;71:247-51 SaricaK, Altay B. Photoselective vaporization (PVP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for prostates >80gm: a prospective randomized trial. Abstract presented at 22nd Annual EAU Congress, Berlin, 2007 Conclusion Length of stay, duration of catheterisation and blood transfusion requirement favour PVP. The overall results suggest equivalence in functional outcomes between PVP and TURP. • Acknowledgements • Carlos Capitán, for contributing extra data for analysis. Department of Urology, Hospital UniversitarioFundacion Alcorcon, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain Poster presentation sponsor