SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Endoscopic enucleation vs. robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large prostates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients' perspectives.
Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy Versus Endoscopic Enucleation for Large-Volume Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes and Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: results from a Delphi consensus project to shed light on controversial topics.World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate [EEP] and Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy [RASP] showed comparable functional results, treatment selection is often based on clinicians' and patients' preferences. The aim of this systematic review was to compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures [PROMs] and Patient-Reported Experience Measures [PREMs] in patients with large prostate glands treated with EEP and RASP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Literature search was performed on August 29 EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten studies involving 1105 patients (430 RASP, 675 EEP) were included in this systematic review. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 24 months. Considering urinary function, all authors reported a great improvement for both EEP and RASP at short- and mid-term, with no significant differences between endoscopic and robotic procedures. Alongside the lower symptom scores, patient-reported Quality of Life [QoL] significantly improved for both techniques. Erectile function remained stable after EEP and RASP in most of the studies, while some of them even reported a significant improvement. No studies reporting PREMs were retrieved.
conclusionsBoth RASP and EEP led to a great improvement in urinary function and QoL, safeguarding sexual function, with no significant difference between the different techniques in terms of functional outcomes. None of the included studies reported PREMs. A standardization of PROMs/PREMs and their integration in clinical practice is warranted, to understand the real impact of these treatments, helping physicians and patients for an individualized shared decision-making process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40251346What 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.