Trial reportProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
A randomized controlled trial comparing en-bloc vs lobe-by-lobe HoLEP: surgical efficiency and early continence outcomes.
Trial report in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare en-bloc HoLEP with conventional lobe-by-lobe (LBL) HoLEP technique in terms of surgical efficiency, perioperative outcomes, and early continence recovery through a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis single-center randomized controlled trial included patients with prostate volume >80 mL undergoing HoLEP for bladder outlet obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eligible patients were randomized to either en-bloc or LBL HoLEP. All procedures incorporated early apical release and sphincteric mucosal preservation. Assessments were performed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. primary outcome was enucleation efficiency (resected weight/enucleation time). Secondary outcomes included operative efficiency, laser energy use, blood loss, hospital stay, complications, and functional outcomes (IPSS, QoL, Qmax, PVR, and transient stress urinary incontinence [SUI]).
resultsA total of 123 patients were randomized (en-bloc: 60; LBL: 63). En-bloc HoLEP was associated with shorter enucleation time (62.5 vs. 74.3 min, P = 0.02), operative time (78.6 vs. 94.9 min, P = 0.0007), and lower laser energy use (135 vs. 154 KJ, P = 0.014). Enucleation efficiency was comparable (1.25 ± 0.49 vs. 1.17 ± 0.62 g/min; P = 0.42). Both techniques resulted in significant postoperative improvements in IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR (all P < 0.0001). Complication rates were similar (14.6% vs. 14%; P = 0.8). At 3 months, transient SUI rates were low and comparable (3.8% en-bloc vs. 4% LBL; P = 0.3).
conclusionEn-bloc HoLEP reduces enucleation time, operative time, and laser energy consumption compared to LBL HoLEP, while maintaining comparable safety, efficacy, and early continence outcomes when performed with modern technical refinements.
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.