Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40448729›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate in men aged 80 years and older. Outcomes from a global, large, and multicenter series using different energy sources and techniques.

Giacomo Maria Pirola, Daniele Castellani, Angelo Naselli, Khi Yung Fong, Sarvajit Biligere, Marco Dellabella, Luca Gasparri, Angelo Cormio, Steffi Kar-Kei Yuen, Bhaskar K Somani and 15 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

25 authors.

Giacomo Maria PirolaDepartment of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Milano, Italy.
Daniele CastellaniDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria delle Marche, Via Conca 71, Ancona, 60126, Italy. castellanidaniele@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-9190
Angelo NaselliDepartment of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Milano, Italy.
Khi Yung FongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sarvajit BiligereDivision of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Marco DellabellaDepartment of Urology, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
Luca GasparriDepartment of Urology, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
Angelo CormioDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria delle Marche, Via Conca 71, Ancona, 60126, Italy.
Steffi Kar-Kei YuenS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Carlo GiulioniDepartment of Urology, Villa Igea Private Hospital, Ancona, Italy.
Fernando Gómez SanchaDepartment of Urology and Robotic Surgery, ICUA-Clínica CEMTRO, Madrid, Spain.
Dmitry EnikeevDepartment of Urology, Vienna Medical University, Vienna, Austria.
Mario SoferDepartment of Urology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Mallikarjuna ChiruvellaDepartment of Urology, Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology, Hyderabad, India.
Mohammed Taif BendigeriDepartment of Urology, Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology, Hyderabad, India.
Azimdjon N TursunkulovUrology Division, AkfaMedline Hospital, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Abhay MahajanDepartment of Urology, Sai Urology Hospital and MGM Medical College, Aurangabad, India.
Tanuj Paul BhatiaDepartment of Urology, Sarvodaya Hospital and Research Centre, Faridabad, Haryana, India.
Sorokin Nikolai IvanovichDepartment of Urology and Andrology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Nariman GadzhievDepartment of Urology, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Lie Kwok YingDivision of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Vladislav PetovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Thomas R W HerrmannDepartment of Urology, Kantonspital Frauenfeld, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Vineet GauharDivision of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo provide the outcomes from a multicentric series of men aged 80 years and above, understand the feasibility of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP), and compare different energy sources and techniques.

methodsWe extracted data on patients who underwent EEP in 15 Centers (January 2019-January 2023). Continuous variables are expressed as medians and interquartile ranges while categorical variables as absolute numbers and percentages. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of overall postoperative incontinence and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

results731 patients were included. Median age was 82 years and median prostate volume (PV) was 90 cc. 33.1% of participants had PV ≤ 80 ml, 28.4%. between 81 and 100 ml, 36.7% between 101 and 200 ml, and 1.8% of more than 200 ml. Median International Prostate Symptom Score was 23 [20-26]. EEP was mainly performed with the en-bloc technique (367 cases, 50.3% of the total). Total median operation time was 80 min [60-110]. Postoperative urinary incontinence was reported in 113 patients (15.5%). Complication rate was low with only 16 patients (2.2%) suffering from major complications (sepsis: 1 case; bleeding requiring surgical control: 13 cases; secondary morcellation: 2 cases). At multi-variable analysis, PV > 200 ml was significantly associated with higher odds of incontinence (OR 5.84 95% CI 1.76-18.96), whilst en-bloc enucleation with lower odds (OR 0.51 95% CI 0.32-0.80).

conclusionEEP in men aged 80 years and above is a safe, efficacious, and size-independent procedure. In glands larger than 200 ml there may be a prolonged period of incontinence, mainly stress-related. En-bloc enucleation may be a better approach to minimize early urinary incontinence.

Indexed as

EndoscopyProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaAged, 80 and overHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUrinary IncontinenceBenign prostatic hyperplasiaElderlyEndoscopic enucleation of the prostateLower urinary tract symptoms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.