Introduction: Since Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate [EEP] and Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy [RASP] showed comparable functional results, treatment selection is often based on clinicians’ and patients’ preferences. The aim of this systematic review was to compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures [PROMs] and Patient-Reported Experience Measures [PREMs] in patients with large prostate glands treated with EEP and RASP. Evidence acquisition: Literature search was performed on August 29th 2024 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, following the EAU Guidelines Office and the PRISMA statement recommendations. All comparative studies reporting validated PROMs/PREMs for both interventions (EEP and RASP) were included. Studies reporting within-treatment comparisons only (e.g., HoLEP vs. ThuLEP) were excluded. Evidence synthesis: Ten studies involving 1105 patients (430 RASP, 675 EEP) were included in this systematic review. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 24 months. Considering urinary function, all authors reported a great improvement for both EEP and RASP at short- and mid-term, with no significant differences between endoscopic and robotic procedures. Alongside the lower symptom scores, patient-reported Quality of Life [QoL] significantly improved for both techniques. Erectile function remained stable after EEP and RASP in most of the studies, while some of them even reported a significant improvement. No studies reporting PREMs were retrieved. Conclusions: Both RASP and EEP led to a great improvement in urinary function and QoL, safeguarding sexual function, with no significant difference between the different techniques in terms of functional outcomes. None of the included studies reported PREMs. A standardization of PROMs/PREMs and their integration in clinical practice is warranted, to understand the real impact of these treatments, helping physicians and patients for an individualized shared decision-making process.
Endoscopic enucleation vs. robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large prostates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients' perspectives / Alberti, Andrea; Conte, Francesca; Costagli, Sara; Cadenar, Anna; Nicoletti, Rossella; Pecoraro, Alessio; Sebastianelli, Arcangelo; Teoh, Jeremy Yuen Chun; Cicione, Antonio; Autorino, Riccardo; Woo, Henry H; De Groote, Ruben; Elterman, Dean; Drake, Marcus; Gravas, Stavros; Ficarra, Vincenzo; De Nunzio, Cosimo; Serni, Sergio; Campi, Riccardo; Gacci, Mauro. - In: PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES. - ISSN 1365-7852. - (2025). [10.1038/s41391-025-00973-w]
Endoscopic enucleation vs. robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large prostates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients' perspectives
Conte, Francesca;Cicione, Antonio;De Nunzio, Cosimo;
2025
Abstract
Introduction: Since Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate [EEP] and Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy [RASP] showed comparable functional results, treatment selection is often based on clinicians’ and patients’ preferences. The aim of this systematic review was to compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures [PROMs] and Patient-Reported Experience Measures [PREMs] in patients with large prostate glands treated with EEP and RASP. Evidence acquisition: Literature search was performed on August 29th 2024 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, following the EAU Guidelines Office and the PRISMA statement recommendations. All comparative studies reporting validated PROMs/PREMs for both interventions (EEP and RASP) were included. Studies reporting within-treatment comparisons only (e.g., HoLEP vs. ThuLEP) were excluded. Evidence synthesis: Ten studies involving 1105 patients (430 RASP, 675 EEP) were included in this systematic review. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 24 months. Considering urinary function, all authors reported a great improvement for both EEP and RASP at short- and mid-term, with no significant differences between endoscopic and robotic procedures. Alongside the lower symptom scores, patient-reported Quality of Life [QoL] significantly improved for both techniques. Erectile function remained stable after EEP and RASP in most of the studies, while some of them even reported a significant improvement. No studies reporting PREMs were retrieved. Conclusions: Both RASP and EEP led to a great improvement in urinary function and QoL, safeguarding sexual function, with no significant difference between the different techniques in terms of functional outcomes. None of the included studies reported PREMs. A standardization of PROMs/PREMs and their integration in clinical practice is warranted, to understand the real impact of these treatments, helping physicians and patients for an individualized shared decision-making process.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
