ReviewBJUI compass2025
Comparing GreenLight PVP and HoLEP beyond 5 years: A systematic review of long-term functional outcomes and reoperation rates.
Review in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of laser power settings on sexual and urinary outcomes in holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
- Article
- Comparing GreenLight PVP and HoLEP beyond 5 years: A systematic review of long-term functional outcomes and reoperation rates.BJUI compass · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare long-term (≥ 5 years) functional outcomes and reoperation rates following holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) vs GreenLight photoselective vaporisation of prostate (GLPVP). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to December 2023. Included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case series studying HoLEP and/or GLPVP, where functional outcomes and reoperation rates were reported. Studies with <5-year follow-up were excluded. Evidence was synthesised as a comparison across all parameters. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Of 3047 records identified, 25 were eligible, including two RCTs, two cohort studies, one cross-sectional study and 20 case series. Twenty-three studies focused on HoLEP or GLPVP, whilst two were comparative studies. HoLEP demonstrated long-term durability of outcomes and low reoperation rates (mean 4.1%, range 2.0%-6.3%) at a mean follow-up of 7.3 years. GLPVP also had durable outcomes at 5-year follow-up, but inconclusive evidence for improvements at 10 years. Reoperation rates were also higher (mean 12.6%, range 3.8%-33.3%). This is in keeping with findings of comparative studies, where HoLEP demonstrated greater improvements in all functional parameters except PVR, and lower reoperation rates. Findings are limited by patient attrition, lack of comparative studies and long-term data beyond 10 years. Three studies examined the 180-W GLPVP model at 5 years showed superior durability to earlier 80-W/120-W models. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that HoLEP provides significantly greater functional improvements and a lower reoperation rate when compared with the GLPVP 80-W/120-W model at 5-year follow-up. The 180-W model is comparable with HoLEP based on limited data at 5 years, but there is a lack of data beyond 10 years for longer-term functional outcomes.
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.