ReviewArab journal of urology2020
Minimally invasive simple prostatectomy in the era of laser enucleation for high-volume prostates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in rates and outcomes of benign prostatic hyperplasia surgeries: a retrospective cohort study using the ACS-NSQIP database (2008-2021).BMC urology · 2026Article
- A review based on expert opinions for robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia.Asian journal of urology · 2025Review
- Robotic prostatectomy for large-volume prostates in prostate cancer: a retrospective analysis of 50 cases (>100 ml).BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Laparoscopic vs open transcapsular adenomectomy (Millin): a comparative study of perioperative outcomes and complications.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Laser and Electrosurgical Transurethral Procedures for the Treatment of BPO in High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review.Research and reports in urology · 2022Review
- Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Simple Prostatectomy and Endoscopic Enucleation of Prostate for Large Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available prospective and retrospective studies comparing the minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) simple prostatectomy (MISP) and laser enucleation of the prostate for treating male lower urinary tract symptoms in high-volume prostates, as laser enucleation of the prostate is the new trend for treating high-volume prostates (>80 mL) but many urologists now prefer MISP.
methodsA systematic search was done using the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases in June 2019, with research terms including: 'laser', 'laparoscopy', 'enucleation', 'BPH', 'simple prostatectomy', 'Millins', and 'adenomectomy'. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
resultsOf 38 screened articles, six were analysed and a total of 975 men were included. The average operative time, length of stay and catheterisation time were significantly shorter in the laser enucleation group (
conclusionThis systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis provide a further demonstration of the safety and effectiveness of both laser enucleation and MISP. While laser enucleation had a shorter catheterisation time and hospital stay than MISP, the latter still had unique and specific indications.
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.