ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Endoscopic en bloc prostate enucleation: a propensity score matched analysis between greenlight enucleation of prostate (GreenLEP) vs holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HOLEP) outcomes and safety with a 12-month follow-up.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGreenlight has been successfully used to treat BPH since 2010s; however, its role during GreenLEP is still under investigation, differently from holmium in HOLEP. Study aim is to compare GreenLEP and HOLEP.
methodsData for GreenLEP and HOLEP were prospectively collected in two referral centers since 2021. Outcomes and safety were compared through propensity score matching. All patients had at least 12-month follow-up.
resultsA total of 120 patient who underwent GreenLEP and 115 HOLEP were enrolled. At unmatched comparison, median PSA and age were comparable, as well as prostate volume, with a median of 98.5 (IQR 82.0-130.0)ml and 90.0 (IQR 65.0-115.0)ml, respectively; on the contrary, IPSS (p = 0.013) and indwelling catheter rate (p = < 0.001) were higher in HOLEP group. Moreover, safety and functional outcomes were comparable, besides lower PSA and IPSS were found at 12-month follow-up in HOLEP group (p < 0.001). Using propensity score matching on 56 GreenLEP and 56 HOLEP, the groups were comparable for age, prostate volume, PSA, ongoing anticoagulant and anti-aggregant therapy, ongoing BPH therapy, pre-operative hemoglobin values, indwelling catheter presence, and IPSS. Regarding outcomes, they were all comparable except lower IPSS and PSA at 6- and 12-month follow-up for HOLEP. Conversely, late complications and stress incontinence were higher in HOLEP (1.8% vs 16.1%, p = 0.008), but at multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference.
conclusionAccording to our results, both HOLEP and GreenLEP are effective in treating BPH in large prostates. However, HOLEP provided slightly better IPSS and PSA reduction, while GreenLEP demonstrated fewer late complications. Further randomized clinical trials are mandatory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40343633What 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.