SynthesisLasers in medical science2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of greenlight laser vaporization, anatomical vaporization, and enucleation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study compares the surgical and functional outcomes of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), anatomical PVP (aPVP), and Greenlight laser enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A comprehensive search was conducted in February 2024 across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases, following PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024518321). Thirteen studies were included, with 11 analyzed in the meta-analysis. Compared to PVP, aPVP had longer operation times (MD: -11.42 min, 95% CI: -15.70 to -7.14, p < 0.00001), higher energy utilization (MD: -56.83 kJ, 95% CI: -61.16 to -52.50, p < 0.00001), and greater energy density (MD: -0.57 kJ/mL, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.39, p < 0.00001). GreenLEP showed superior energy efficiency (MD: 212.95 kJ, 95% CI: 40.41 to 385.50, p = 0.02) and functional outcomes, particularly in Qmax, PVR, and PSA levels at final follow-up. GreenLEP also had the lowest re-operation rate (OR: 27.30, 95% CI: 8.52 to 87.51, p < 0.00001) and was most effective for larger prostates. No significant differences in early, late, or major complications were observed across techniques. This meta-analysis highlights that aPVP and GreenLEP offer superior functional and efficiency benefits compared to PVP while maintaining comparable safety. GreenLEP is particularly advantageous for larger prostates, providing an effective and safe alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40085272What 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.