Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38871959›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Comparison of HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Halil Cagri Aybal, Mehmet Yilmaz, Irfan Safak Barlas, Mehmet Duvarci, Altug Tuncel, Lutfi Tunc

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Thulium fiber laser versus holmium MOSESProstate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Halil Cagri AybalPolatlı Duatepe State Hospital, Clinic of Urology, Ankara, Turkey.
Mehmet YilmazDepartment of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, Heilbronn, Germany. yilmazmehmet88@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3774-9982
Irfan Safak BarlasDepartment of Urology, Acıbadem University Ankara Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Mehmet DuvarciDepartment of Urology, University of Health Sciences, Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Altug TuncelAnkara Bilkent City Hospital, Department of Urology, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Lutfi TuncDepartment of Urology, Acıbadem University Ankara Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) and Thulium fibre laser enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP) by performing propensity score matched analysis (PSM).

methodsWe retrospectively analysed the patients who underwent HoLEP (Group 1, n = 696), ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 146) and ThuFLEP (Group 3, n = 193) surgery because of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). A 1:1:1 HoLEP: ThuLEP: ThuFLEP group matching was performed using PSM analysis. Perioperative, postoperative functional outcomes and complications were analysed and compared.

resultsWe observed significant improvement in functional parameters regarding IPSS, Qmax, PVR and quality of life in all groups compared to baseline values at the 1st, 6th and 12th postoperative months. There was no significant difference between different laser types in terms of urge (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1st postoperative month. In all three groups, no patient had postoperative SUI or UUI at 6th and 12th postoperative months. In addition, no significant difference was observed between laser types in terms of postoperative complications.

conclusionHoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective LEP methods with improvement in functional parameters and low complication rates. Similar results in terms of functional outcomes and complications clearly show that these surgeries are alternatives to each other for the patients with BPO. Experts' opinions, practices and enucleation techniques should also be taken into consideration when choosing a laser for BPO surgery.

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateLaser TherapyPropensity ScoreProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaThuliumAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeThuliumBenign prostatic obstructionHoLEPLaser enucleationPropensity matchingThuFLEPThuLEP

Identifiers

PMID38871959

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.