Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 24;26:72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.02.001

Table 3.

Evidence overview of prostatic urethral lift versus TURP

Outcome Number of trials (evaluated) Intervention Control Absolute risk difference (95% CI) Relative risk (95% CI) Quality of evidence
% (n/N) or mean change % (n/N) or mean change
Responders, based on IPSS reduction of ≥30% 1 (73) 73 (30/41) 91 (29/32) Greater with TURP 0.8 (0.7–1.0) Lowa, b
–17.5% (–34.4 to –0.5)
IPSS, mean change from baseline: long-term follow-up (>12 mo) 1 (69) –9.2 points –15.3 points Greater with TURP Lowa, b
MD 6.1 (2.2–10.0)
IPSS-QoL, mean change from baseline: long-term follow-up (>12 mo) 1 (69) –2.5 points –3.3 points MD 0.8 (–0.0 to 1.6) Lowa, c
Need for reoperation (2 yr) 1 (79) 14 (6/44) 6 (2/35) 8.0% (–4.8 to 20.6) 2.4 (0.5–11.1) Very lowa, d
Transfusion NR
Urinary incontinence e 1 (79) 2 (1/44) 17 (6/35) –15.0% (–28.1 to –1.6) 0.1 (0.02–1.1) Very low a, d

CI = confidence intervals; IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score; MD = mean difference; NR = not reported; QoL = quality of life; TURP = transurethral resection of the prostate.

Downgraded based on the following:

a

Risk of bias (moderate).

b

Imprecision.

c

Very wide confidence.

d

Very wide confidence interval and few events.

e

Clavien-Dindo grade 1.