Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36147079›Full record

ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022

Comparative efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) using moses technology and standard HoLEP: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

Muhammad Zaniar Ramadhani, Yudhistira Pradnyan Kloping, Ilham Akbar Rahman, Niwanda Yogiswara, Johan Renaldo, Soetojo Wirjopranoto

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Muhammad Zaniar RamadhaniDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia.
Yudhistira Pradnyan KlopingDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia.
Ilham Akbar RahmanDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia.
Niwanda YogiswaraDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia.
Johan RenaldoDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia.
Soetojo WirjopranotoDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia.
Universitas Dr. Soetomo · IDAirlangga University · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The use of HoLEP was associated with steep learning curve thus prolonging operative procedure. The problem of learning curve could be solved with the invention of Moses HoLEP. This study aimed to evaluate the comparison of efficacy and safety between Moses HoLEP and standard HoLEP in BPH patient. Materials and methods: Systematic search was carried out using PRISMA guideline. Pubmed, Scopus and Embase were searched to collect randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Quantitative analysis was performed to evaluate the comparison in intraoperative, postoperative and complications characteristics. RevMan 5.4 and STATA were used in data analysis. Results: Total of 7 studies (1226 patients) were included. Regarding intraoperative characteristics, Moses HoLEP provided significantly shorter enucleation time (MD: 3.00, 95% CI: 5.57 to -0.43, p = 0.02), shorter hemostasis time (MD: 3.79, 95% CI: 5.23 to -2.34, p < 0.00001), and shorter laser use time (MD: 2.79, 95% CI: 5.03 to -0.55, p = 0.01). For postoperative characteristics, Moses HoLEP possessed significantly lower PVR (MD -34.57, 95% CI -56.85 to -12.30, p = 0.002). Overall complication was higher in standard HoLEP although the result was not significant (MD 0.68, 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.21, p = 0.19). Moses HoLEP possessed more superiority over standard HoLEP regarding shorter hemostasis time with the increasing of prostate size (coefficient -0.894, p = 0.044). Conclusion: Moses HoLEP demonstrated shorter enucleation time, shorter hemostasis time and shorter laser use time. Moses HoLEP also possessed lower PVR. There were no safety issues in Moses HoLEP compared with standard HoLEP.

Indexed as

HoLEPHolmium laser enucleation of the prostateMoses HoLEPProstatic hyperplasia

Identifiers

PMID36147079
PMCPMC9486436
OpenAlexW4290861519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.