SynthesisWorld journal of urology2020
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of endoscopic enucleation and non-enucleation procedures for benign prostatic enlargement.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic enucleation vs. robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large prostates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients' perspectives.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Incidence, predictive factors and oncological outcomes of incidental prostate cancer after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2022Pooled it
- Bladder neck stenosis after transurethral prostate surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2021Pooled it
- Shedding light on polypragmasy of pain after transurethral prostate surgery procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2021Pooled it
- Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate made practical: lessons from experts from the BEAM25 meeting.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Increased risk of bleeding during and after HoLEP in patients with prostate cancer: A multicentre comparative cohort study.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction: a narrative review.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2022Article
- Article
- Nomenclature in thulium laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: it's time to pull the rabbit out of the hat.Lasers in medical science · 2021Review
- Pharmacological and interventional treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: An evidence-based comparative review.BJUI compass · 2021Review
- Comparison of surgical outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using different energies.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Preserving ejaculatory function in young patients with lower urinary tract symptoms: medium- to long-term follow-up of prostatic urethral lift at a single center.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of different endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques, by comparing laser (L-EEP) and non-laser (NL-EEP) procedures; and EEP versus other endoscopic non-enucleation (ENE) surgeries for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE).
methodsA systematic literature review was performed for randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared different endoscopic treatments for BPE, between 1982 and 2018. Two analyses were performed: (1) EEP versus ENE; and (2) L-EEP versus NL-EEP. Efficacy was assessed using perioperative data (removed tissue volume, operation time (OT), catheterization time, length of hospital stay); and functional outcomes [IPSS, IIEF-5, maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), quality of life (QoL)]. Safety was assessed through complications (Hb and sodium decrease, transfusion rate). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan
resultsOut of 35 RCTs (4066 patients), 31 (3909 patients) evaluated EEP versus ENE, and 4 (327 patients) evaluated L-EEP versus NL-EEP. EEP presented greater Qmax. Also, EEP presented less catheterization time, length of hospital stay, Hb decrease, transfusion rate. OT and bladder injury were greater with EEP. There were no significant differences between other items. L-EEP removed more tissue volume, with a smaller drop in serum Hb. There were no significant differences in other perioperative data, functional outcomes, complications.
conclusionsEEP and ENE are effective and safe for treating BPE. Perioperative data favors EEP. Statistical differences, with questionable clinical significance in functional outcomes and complication rates were encountered. L-EEP provides greater tissue removal and smaller Hb decrease then NL-EEP, with similar functional profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.