ArticleUrologia internationalis2024
Perioperative Rates of Incidental Prostate Cancer after Aquablation and Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate.
Article in Urologia internationalis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hidden findings: How often does Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) uncover prostate cancer?International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAquablation and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have evolved as established therapeutic options for men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). We sought to compare the rates of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) after aquablation and HoLEP.
methodsAt our center, between January 2020 and November 2022, 317 men underwent aquablation, and 979 men underwent HoLEP for BPO. Histopathological assessment of resected tissue was conducted in all cases. If iPCa was detected, the Gleason score and percentage of affected tissue were assessed. Differences in important predictive factors for prostate cancer between study groups were accounted for by additional matched pairs analysis (with matching on age ± 1 year; PSA ± 0.5 ng/mL; and prostate volume ± 5 mL).
resultsHistopathology revealed iPCas in 60 patients (4.6%): 59 (6.03%) after HoLEP and 1 (0.3%) after aquablation (p = 0.001). Of 60 of incidental cancers, 11 had a Gleason score ≥7 (aquablation: 1/1 [100%]; HoLEP: 10/59 [16.9%]). The aquablation and HoLEP study groups differed in patient age, preoperative PSA, and prostate volume. Therefore, matched pairs analysis (aquablation: 132 patients; HoLEP: 132 patients) was conducted to improve comparability. Also after the matching procedure, significantly fewer iPCas were diagnosed after aquablation than HoLEP (aquablation: 0 [0%]; HoLEP: 6 [4.5%]; p = 0.015).
conclusionSignificantly fewer iPCas were identified after aquablation than HoLEP procedures. Histopathologic assessment of tissue after aquablation is feasible and may lead to the diagnosis of clinically significant iPCa. Therefore, histopathologic examination of the aquablation resective tissue should not be omitted.
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.