ReviewCentral European journal of urology2025
Does miniaturisation improve holmium laser enucleation of prostate outcomes? A meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- HoLEP using a 21 Fr internal urethrotomy sheath, a feasible alternative to MiLEP in resource-limited settings.World journal of urology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a versatile treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), serving as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open/robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Recent advancements have focused on evaluating the impact of smaller (22-24 Fr) vs larger (26-28 Fr) resectoscope sheaths on procedural outcomes.The aim of this study was to assess and compare the safety, efficiency, and complication rates associated with smaller and larger resectoscope sheaths in HoLEP procedures through a meta-analysis. Material and methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Four studies (one RCT and three retrospective) comprising 633 patients (277 with small sheaths [SR] and 356 with large sheaths [LR]) met inclusion criteria. Outcomes assessed included operative time, enucleation/morcellation efficiency, complications (urethral strictures, transient incontinence), and recovery parameters. Results: In terms of efficiency, no significant differences were observed in operative time, enucleation time, or enucleation efficiency. LR showed faster morcellation time (p = 0.03). As for complications, SR had significantly lower urethral dilation rates (8.0% vs 39.5%, p = 0.01). No significant differences in urethral stricture rates, catheterisation duration, complication rates or transfusion rates. In terms of recovery, similar hospital stay durations and incontinence rates were seen at 3 months postoperatively between groups, and SR might decrease incontinence rates at 1 month postoperatively. Conclusions: Using smaller resectoscope sheaths in HoLEP reduces urethral dilation rates without compromising procedural efficiency or safety. Larger sheaths had shorter morcellation times. The choice of sheath size should be guided by patient anatomy, surgeon expertise, and procedural requirements. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.