Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37193777›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2023

Enucleation of the prostate as retreatment for recurrent or residual benign prostatic obstruction: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Nikolaos Pyrgidis, Ioannis Mykoniatis, Lukas Lusuardi, Gerald Bastian Schulz, Ioannis Sokolakis, Christian Stief, Petros Sountoulides

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Thulium fiber laser versus holmium MOSESProstate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nikolaos PyrgidisDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ioannis Mykoniatis1st Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-3869-2888
Lukas LusuardiDepartment of Urology, Paracelsus Medical University (PMU) Hospital, Salzburg, Austria.
Gerald Bastian SchulzDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0340-0304
Ioannis Sokolakis2nd Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Christian StiefDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Petros Sountoulides1st Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. psountoulidis@auth.gr.ORCID 0000-0003-2671-571X
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRLMU Klinikum · DEParacelsus Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) is recommended for first line surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused by moderate and large prostatic adenoma. However, its role in the retreatment setting after failed previous surgical treatment for BPO remains uncaptured. In this scope, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of AEEP in the retreatment setting.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases from inception to March 2022 for prospective or retrospective studies involving patients undergoing prostatic enucleation for recurrent or residual BPO after previous standard or minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPO. Based on data availability, we performed a meta-analysis comparing AEEP in patients with recurrent or residual BPO versus AEEP for primary BPO. PROSPERO: CRD42022308941).

resultsWe included 15 studies in the systematic review and 10 in the meta-analysis (6553 patients, 841 with recurrent or residual BPO and 5712 with primary BPO). All included studies involved patients undergoing HoLEP or ThuLEP. In terms of Qmax, post-void residual, International Prostate Symptom Score, removed adenoma, operative time, duration of catheterization and hospital stay, as well as complications, HoLEP for recurrent or residual BPO was equally effective compared to HoLEP for primary BPO up to 1 year postoperatively. Importantly, the beneficial effect of HoLEP on the retreatment setting was observed after previous standard or minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPO. The overall strength of evidence for all outcomes was deemed very low.

conclusionsHoLEP may be safely and effectively used in experienced hands for the surgical treatment of recurrent or residual BPO in patients with large or moderate prostates following previous open, endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical treatment for BPO.

Indexed as

EndoscopyProstatic HyperplasiaProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleProspective StudiesProstateRetreatmentRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37193777
OpenAlexW4376647988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.