ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2024
Clinical outcome and safety of holmium laser prostate enucleation after transrectal prostate biopsies for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of energy coagulation in radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis: A narrative review.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the clinical outcome and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TR biopsy) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 556 patients who underwent HoLEP between 2014 and 2021. The patients were categorized into six groups: Group 1-A (n=45) underwent HoLEP within four months post TR biopsy. Group 1-B (n=94) underwent HoLEP more than four months post TR biopsy. Group 1-C (n=120) underwent HoLEP after a single TR biopsy. Group 1-D (n=19) underwent HoLEP after two or more TR biopsies. Group 1-total (n=139, group 1-A+group 1-B or group 1-C+group 1-D) underwent HoLEP post TR biopsy. Group 2 (control group, n=417) underwent HoLEP without prior TR biopsy. We examined perioperative parameters, safety, and functional outcomes.
resultsThe age, body mass index, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry, and comorbid diseases between group 1-total and group 2 were comparable. However, group 1-total exhibited significantly elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and larger prostate volumes (p<0.01). Perioperative factors like enucleation time, enucleation weight, and catheterization duration were notably higher in group 1-total (p<0.01). All groups showed significant improvements in IPSS, postvoid residual urine, and maximum flow rate during the 1-year postoperative period (p<0.05). The rates of postoperative complications were similar between group 1-total and group 2.
conclusionsEnucleation time and catheterization duration were significantly longer in the TR biopsy group. However, postoperative complications were not significantly different between TR biopsy and non-TR biopsy groups.
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.