Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 21;9(8):e028855. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028855

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of comparative studies

Authors and year Design Group Laser power (W) No of patients Age (years) Prostate size (mL) IPSS Qmax (mL/s) PVR (mL) QoL IIEF Follow-up (months) LE Study quality
Kumar et al, 201324 RCT PVP 120 58 64.58±6.64 52.79±16.13 20.05±2.75 6.68±2.00 143.35±52.67 3.60±1.01 16.65±2.80 12 2a 3*
TURP 60 63.68±6.57 52.20±15.93 20.71±2.68 7.00±1.97 139.25±54.28 3.73±0.97 16.95±2.86
Lukacs et al 2012 2 RCT PVP 120 68 66.9±7.8 50.54±16.53 22 (17–26)% 7.79±2.75 89.5 (30, 158)% 70 (68, 80)% 12 2a 3*
TURP 68 67.6±7.6 50.11±14.73 20 (15–23)% 7.76±2.64 75 (28,126)% 75 (65, 85)%
Pereira-Correia et al 201225 RCT PVP 120 10 66.4 (52, 76)$ 43.4 (30, 58)$ 22 (9, 33)$ 10 (3, 18)$ 150 (25, 250)$ 23 (22, 24)$ 24 2a 2*
TURP 10 63.5 (56, 78)$ 47 (30, 60)$ 25 (15, 31)$ 6.4 (4,11)$ 177 (50, 300)$ 23 (22, 25)$
Capitan et al 20117 RCT PVP 120 50 69.8±8.44 51.29±14.72 23.74±5.24 8.03±3.14 4.52±0.27 12 2a 3*
TURP 50 67.7±6.7 53.10±13.75 23.52±4.38 3.88±2.71 4.14±1.06
Al-Ansari et al 201026 RCT PVP 120 60 66.3±9.4  61.8±22 27.2±2.3 6.9±2.2 53.2±25 36 2a 3*
TURP 60 67.1±8  60.3±20 27.9±2.7 6.4±2 57±21
Xue et al 201327 RCT PVP 120 100 72.1±11.3 65.8±23.6 23.0±5.1  8.0±3.6 148.3±101.6 4.2±0.9 36 2a 2*
TURP 100 71.0±10.8 67.3±24.7 23.2±5.0  8.2±3.8 151.1±105.2 4.3±0.8
Horasanli et al 200838 RCT PVP 80 39 69.2±7.1 86.1±8.8 18.9±5.1 8.6±5.2 183±50.1 19.9±5.1 6 2a 2*
TURP 37 68.3±6.7 88±9.2 20.2±6.8 9.2±5.6 176.9±45.3 20.1±5.5
Mohanty et al 201228 RCT PVP 80 60 66.68±8.62 44.77±14.09 19.98±3.27 7.41±2.07 145.8±70.33 3.97±0.82 17.98±3.55 12 2a 3*
TURP 57 65.74±9.09 49.02±15.93 20.88±3.87 6.75±1.63 143.23±65.96 3.91±0.78 17.40±4.76
Bouchier-Hayes et al 200911 RCT PVP 80 60 >50 25.28±5.93 8.81±2.55 129.2±155.7 111.3±113.7 4.74±1.23 12 2a 3*
TURP 59 25.41±5.72 8.86±2.99 5.08±0.94
Bachmann et al 201410 RCT PVP 180 136 65.9±6.8 48.6±19.2 21.2±5.9 9.5±3.0 110.1±88.5 4.6±1.1 13.2±7.6 6 2a 3*
TURP 133 65.4±6.6 46.2±19.1 21.7±6.4 9.9±3.5 109.8±103.9 4.5±1.4 13.7±7.5
Bachmann et al 201529 RCT PVP 180 136 65.9±6.8 48.6±19.2 21.2±5.9 9.5±3.0 110.1±88.5 4.6±1.1 13.2±7.6 12 2a 2*
TURP 133 65.4±6.6 46.2±19.1 21.7±6.4 9.9±3.5 109.8±103.9 4.5±1.4 13.7±7.5
Thomas et al 201630 RCT PVP 180 136 65.9±6.8 48.6±19.2 21.2±5.9 9.5±3.0 110.1±88.5 4.6±1.1 13.2±7.6 24 2a 3*
TURP 133 65.4±6.6 46.2±19.1 21.7±6.4 9.9±3.5 109.8±103.9 4.5±1.4 13.7±7.5
Telli et al 201532 RCT PVP 120 39 67 (51, 87)$ 60 (41, 75)$ 20 (12, 30)$ 10.6 (5, 17)$ 60 (20, 220)$ 24 2a 2*
TURP 62 69 (56, 87)$ 55 (40, 72)$ 19 (10, 31)$ 12.5 (3, 21)$ 65 (10, 220)$
Kumar et al 201631 RCT PVP 120 58 64.58±6.64 52.79±16.13 20.05±2.75 6.68±2.00 143.35±52.67 3.60±1.01 16.65±2.80 36 2a 2*
TURP 60 63.68±6.57 52.20±15.93 20.71±2.68 7.00±1.97 139.25±54.28 3.73±0.97 16.95±2.86
Mordasini et al 201839 RCT PVP 80 112 68.4±8.7 36.1±11.5 20.3±7.0 8.9±4.1 91.1±88.3 4.2±1.1 60 2a 2*
TURP 126 67.6±8.4 37.9±14.3 20.4±7.5 8.5±4.6 114.5±136.4 4.3±14
Chen et al 2011 PCS PVP 160 57 69.5±7.4 60.2±27.8 19.7±6.0 6.9±4.0 93.7±79.7 6 2b 9†
TURP 51 67.1±6.9 58.3±26.2 21.8±7.3 6.8±2.3 102.2±70.1
Bachmann et al 200537 PCS PVP 37 71.0±9.3 65.1±36.9 18.1±5.9 6.9±2.2 146.1±106.9 120.7±49.0 3.3±1.7 6 2b 9†
TURP 64 68.7±7.9 48.9±21.2 17.3±6.3 6.9±2.2 3.4±1.6
Ruszat et al 20088 PCS PVP 80 113 62.3±5.0 56.3±27.4 20±6.4 8.5±4.1 203±226 24 2b 9†
TURP 75 61.7±5.5 45.3±21.0 19±6.9 9.8±5.0 104±108
PVP 91 75.0±2.8 64.8±26.8 18.6±5.8 7.3±2.7 215±247
TURP 40 74.0±2.6 54.2±21.2 16.0±7.1 9.2±5.4 124±141
PVP 65 84.3±3.1 69.3±32.7 14.1±7.4 7.1±4.2 200±219
TURP 12 82.4±2.8 44.9±22.1 15.5±6.7 7.6±3.9 231±350
Tasci et al 200833 PCS PVP 40 71.8±5.9 108.4±15.8 22.3±5.6 6.2±2.2 116.5±60.5 3.6±0.7 24 2b 9†
TURP 41 70.1±5.4 104.2±12.5 22.6±3.9 6.5±1.8 110.7±59.8 3.5±0.6
Tugcu et al 200833 PCS PVP 112 67.5±7.4 49.1±11.9 17.9±4.9 6.9±1.9 107.9±63.0 100.3±57.1 3.4±0.6 24 2b 9†
TURP 98 66.3±7.9 47.7±8.4 17.7±3.5 7.2±1.7 3.4±0.5
Nomura et al 200935 PCS PVP 80 78 72.0 (67.0, 78.0)$ 50.5 (38.6, 70.3)$ 23 (17, 27)$ 6.8 (5.2, 9.5)$ 69 (31, 139)$ 5 (5, 6)$ 12 2b 9†
TURP 51 70.5 (66.5, 76.0)$ 42.8 (34.6, 54.0)$ 22 (16, 27)$ 7.3 (5.3, 10.2)$ 60 (31, 140)$ 5 (4, 5)$
Guo et al 201536 PCS PVP 80 257 69.7±8.9 66.4±8.4 52.3±19.3 44.2±19.1 19.4±6.3 18.4±6.3 8.3±6.0 119.5±83.8 95.6±98.4 3.7±1.7 3.7±1.3 60 2b 9†
TURP 104 10.0±5.2

Continuous variables were expressed as (mean±SD), mean (range)$ or median (IQR)%.

Bachmann et al, 201410 Bachmann et al, 2015 and30 Thomas et al, 2016 are from the same trials in different period.24 Kumar et al, 2013 and Kumar et al, 2016 are from the same trials in different period.

*Using Jadad scale (score from 0 to 5).

†Using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (score from 0 to 9).

IIEF, international index of erectile function; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score;LE, level of evidence; PCS, prospective cohort study; PVP, photoselective vaporisation of the prostate; PVR, postvoid residual volume; Qmax, maximum flow rate; QoL, quality of life;RCT, randomised controlled trial; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate.