SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025
Outcomes and safety of trans perineal laser ablation of the prostate: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: State of the Art, Physical Principles, Potentials, and Challenges.Cancers · 2026Review
- Response to Commentary 'Ultrasound-Guided Transperineal Prostate Thermal Ablation (TPTA) for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Feasibility of an Outpatient Procedure Using Radiofrequency Ablation'.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProstate trans-perineal laser ablation (TPLA) is a minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) that is gaining importance as an alternative to the standard of care, namely transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). To evaluate the functional outcomes and rates of complication in BPH patients with LUTS who underwent TPLA. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a scoping systematic review (PROSPERO id CRD42024612152) on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in June 2025 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS).
resultsOverall, 17 studies (13 prospective and four retrospective studies) involving 717 patients were analyzed. However, study heterogeneity and limited long-term data hinder a comprehensive and unbiased comparison with TURP. Prostate TPLA was associated with improvements at 12-month in LUTS (Δ of IPPS and QoL ranged from 40.7 to 72.7% and from 50 to 75%, respectively) as well as patient satisfaction, and uroflowmetry measures (Δ of Qmax and Post-voidal residuum ranged from 42.8 to 127.7% and from 28.4 to 86.4%). Moreover, ejaculatory functioning was preserved. Prostate TPLA-related complication rates were low, with most adverse effects classified as Clavien-Dindo grade II.
conclusionsRetrospective evidence widely suggests that prostate TPLA is a suitable option for BPH treatment. Future research, especially randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm prostate TPLA efficacy over a period longer than the standard 12-month follow-up and assess its cost-effectiveness relative to TURP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40548982What 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.