Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39676436›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2024

Comparative analysis of low-power versus high-power holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for symptomatic small-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Zhixiang Gao, Yue Ding, Haiyong Liu, Renji Du, Zhiwei Sun, Li Xu, Lijuan Gu, Ping Wang, Rong Wang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

9 authors.

Zhixiang GaoDepartment of Urology, Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5311-4699
Yue DingDepartment of Urology, Jintan Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China.
Haiyong LiuDepartment of Urology, Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Renji DuDepartment of Urology, Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Zhiwei SunDepartment of Urology, Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Li XuDepartment of Urology, Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Lijuan GuDepartment of Urology, Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Ping WangDepartment of Urology, Jintan Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China.
Rong WangDepartment of Urology, Zhangjiagang Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of low-power (LP) and high-power (HP) holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients with symptomatic small-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

methodsIn this prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial, men with symptomatic BPH (prostate volume <40 mL, peak urinary flow rate [Qmax] <10 mL/s, International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] ≥18) underwent either LP (24 W) or HP HoLEP (80 W). The primary outcome was IPSS at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the surgical duration, total laser energy, enucleated prostate weight, patient-reported outcomes, and Clavien-Dindo classification of complications at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery.

resultsEighty-one participants completed the study. LP HoLEP used significantly less energy (22.4 ± 10.4 kJ vs. 58.6 ± 17.8 kJ). Postoperative pain was lower in the LP group at 24 and 48 hours. Both groups displayed significant improvements in outcomes versus baseline including IPSS and Qmax. The incidence of intraoperative complications was similar, though minor capsular perforation occurred exclusively in the HP group (9.8%).

conclusionLP HoLEP produced comparable clinical outcomes as HP HoLEP for small-volume BPH while using less energy, supporting its use for smaller glands.

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateProstatic HyperplasiaAgedHumansLaser TherapyMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainProspective StudiesProstateSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeBenign prostatic hyperplasiaholmium laser enucleation of the prostateintraoperative complicationpostoperative outcomeprostate volumerandomized controlled trialrenal complicationurinary tract

Identifiers

PMID39676436
PMCPMC11648024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.