A systematic review of minimally invasive techniques for relief of bladder outflow obstruction
Marshall V, De Nichilo D, Babidge W
Record ID 31999008607
English
Authors' objectives:
To assess the literature pertaining to the safety and efficacy of several minimally invasive techniques for relief of bladder outflow obstruction, in comparison with the gold standard, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).
Authors' recommendations:
A. Laser Prostatectomy i. Visual Laser Ablation of the prostate (VLAP) The safety and/or efficacy of the procedure cannot be determined at the present time due to an incomplete and/or poor quality evidence-base. An audit is recommended to assess both safety and efficacy. ii. Interstitial Laser Coagulation of the prostate The safety and/or efficacy of the procedure cannot be determined at the present time due to an incomplete and/or poor quality evidence-base. A randomised controlled clinical trial is recommended to assess both safety and efficacy. iii. Laser Contact Vaporisation of the prostate The safety and/or efficacy of the procedure cannot be determined at the present time due to an incomplete and/or poor quality evidence-base. An audit is recommended to assess both safety and efficacy.
B. Transurethral Microwave Therapy (TUMT) The safety and/or efficacy of the procedure cannot be determined at the present time due to an incomplete and/or poor quality evidence-base. A randomised controlled clinical trial is recommended to assess both safety and efficacy.
C. Transurethral Electrovaporisation (TUVP) The safety and efficacy is established, and the procedure may be introduced into practice.
D. Transurethral Needle Ablation (TUNA) The safety and/or efficacy of the procedure cannot be determined at the present time due to an incomplete and/or poor quality evidence-base. An audit is recommended to assess both safety and efficacy.
E. High Intensity Focussed Ultrasound (HIFU) The safety and/or efficacy of the procedure cannot be determined at the present time due to an incomplete and/or poor quality evidence-base. A randomised controlled clinical trial is recommended to assess both safety and efficacy.
Authors' methods:
Systematic review
Details
Project Status:
Completed
URL for project:
http://www.surgeons.org/asernip-s/
Year Published:
2000
English language abstract:
An English language summary is available
Publication Type:
Not Assigned
Country:
Australia
MeSH Terms
- Laser Therapy
- Prostatectomy
- Transurethral Resection of Prostate
- Urethral Obstruction
Contact
Organisation Name:
Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical
Contact Address:
ASERNIP-S 24 King William Street, Kent Town SA 5067 Australia Tel: +61 8 8219 0900
Contact Name:
racs.asernip@surgeons.org
Contact Email:
racs.asernip@surgeons.org
Copyright:
Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures - Surgical
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.