Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41049822›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of urology2025

A comparison between thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy in the surgical management of large benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Victor Audige, Davy Benarroche, Louis Lenfant, Christophe Vaessen, Jérôme Parra, Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, Aurélien Beaugerie, Pierre Mozer, Quentin Dubourg, Margaux Felber and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

13 authors.

Victor AudigeGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Davy BenarrocheGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Louis LenfantGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Christophe VaessenGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Jérôme ParraGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Emmanuel Chartier-KastlerGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Aurélien BeaugerieGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Pierre MozerGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Quentin DubourgGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Margaux FelberGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Thomas SeisenGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Morgan RoupretGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Ugo PinarGRC 5 Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) are two options for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia. The most appropriate technique remains a matter of debate. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ThuFLEP compared to RASP. Methods: Between January 2020 and December 2023, all patients who underwent either RASP or ThuFLEP for a prostate volume >80 mL were retrospectively included. The surgical procedure choice was left to the surgeon's and patient's discretion. Preoperative patient evaluation included the assessment of functional parameters. The groups were compared. Results: A total of 234 patients were included: 106 (45%) underwent RASP and 128 (55%) underwent ThuFLEP. The mean operative time was shorter in the ThuFLEP group compared to the RASP group (106.4 with standard deviation [SD] 46.1 min Conclusion: Both ThuFLEP and RASP are safe techniques with comparable functional outcomes for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. ThuFLEP allows a reduction in catheterization and hospitalization durations but presents more complications compared to RASP.

Indexed as

Benign prostatic hyperplasiaLower urinary tract symptomsMini-invasive surgical treatmentProstate endoscopic enucleationRobot-assisted surgerySimple prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID41049822
PMCPMC12490692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.