Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34604814›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2021

New Ultra-minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.

Enrico Checcucci, Alessandro Veccia, Sabrina De Cillis, Federico Piramide, Gabriele Volpi, Daniele Amparore, Angela Pecoraro, Alberto Piana, Stefano Granato, Paolo Verri and 20 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Local anesthesia for UroLiftWorld journal of urology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Machine Learning to Predict Prostate Artery Embolization Outcomes.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Enrico CheccucciDepartment of Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Alessandro VecciaUrology Unit, ASST Carlo Poma Hospital, Mantua, Italy.
Sabrina De CillisDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Federico PiramideDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Gabriele VolpiDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Daniele AmparoreDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Angela PecoraroDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Alberto PianaDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Stefano GranatoDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Paolo VerriDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Michele SicaDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Juliette MeziereDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Beatrice CarbonaroDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Stefano PiscitelloDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Davide ZamengoDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giovanni CacciamaniUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Zhamshid OkhunovUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Stefano PuliattiUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Mark TaratkinUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Josè MarencoUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Juan Gomez RivasUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Domenico VenezianoUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Umberto CarbonaraDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation-Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Giorgio Ivan RussoUrology Section, Department of Surgery, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Stefano De LucaDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Matteo ManfrediDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Cristian FioriDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Riccardo AutorinoDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Bianchi-Melacrino-Morelli Hospital, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Francesco PorpigliaDepartment of Oncology, Division of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Uro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party of the European Association of Urology and of the Lower Tract and Research Group of the European Section of Uro-technology
University of Turin · ITEuropean Association of Urology · NLUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Carlo Poma · ITChildren's Hospital of Richmond at VCU · USSechenov University · RUUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is diagnosed in up to 80% of men during their lifetime. Several novel ultra-minimally invasive surgical treatments (uMISTs) for BPH/benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) have become available over the past 5 yr.

objectiveTo evaluate the perioperative and functional outcomes of recently introduced uMISTs for BPH/BPO, including Urolift, Rezūm, temporary implantable nitinol device, prostatic artery embolization (PAE), and intraprostatic injection. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was conducted in December 2020 using Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science (registered on PROSPERO as CRD42021225014). The search strategy used PICO criteria and article selection was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The risk of bias and the quality of the articles included were assessed. A dedicated data extraction form was used to collect the data of interest. Pooled and cumulative analyses were performed to compare perioperative and functional outcomes between study groups. A random-effects model using the DerSimonian and Laird method was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Stata version 15.0 software was used for all statistical analyses. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The initial electronic search identified 3978 papers, of which 48 ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis revealed a uMIST benefit in terms of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS; -9.81 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.37 to -8.25 at 1 mo; -13.13 points, 95% CI -14.98 to -11.64 at 12 mo), maximum flow rate (from +3.66 ml/s, 95% CI 2.8-4.5 to +4.14 ml/s, 95% CI 0.72-7.56 at 12 mo), and postvoid residual volume (-10.10 ml, 95% CI -27.90 to 7.71 at 12 mo). No negative impact was observed on scores for the International Index of Erectile Function-5, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculatory Dysfunction bother and function scales (overall postintervention change in pooled median score of 1.88, 95% CI 1.34-2.42 at the start of follow-up; and 1.04, 95% CI 0.28-1.8 after 1 yr), or the IPSS-Quality of Life questionnaire.

conclusionsNovel uMISTs can yield fast and effective relief of LUTS without affecting patient quality of life. Only Rezūm, UroLift, and PAE had a minimal impact on patients' sexual function with respect to baseline, especially regarding preservation of ejaculation. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed outcomes for recently introduced ultra-minimally invasive surgical treatments for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostate enlargement or obstruction. The evidence suggests that these novel techniques are beneficial in terms of controlling symptoms while preserving sexual function. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Novel ultra-minimally invasive treatments can yield fast and effective relief of lower urinary tract symptoms without affecting a patient's quality of life.

Indexed as

Benign prostatic hyperplasiaEjaculationLower urinary tract symptomsMicturitionUltra-minimally invasive

Identifiers

PMID34604814
PMCPMC8473553
OpenAlexW3199028049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.