ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
Feasibility, safety and efficacy of using low-power thulium: YAG laser enucleation of prostate compared to HoLEP in developing country.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We aimed to assess and compare the feasibility and perioperative outcomes using low-power thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) compared to standard holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the management of BPO-related symptoms due to prostates volume exceeding 80 ml. Material and methods: One hundred and fifty patients with large prostates indicated for prostate enucleation were prospectively randomized into two groups: HoLEP group (74 patients), and the low-power ThuLEP group (76 patients). Preoperative assessment included digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen, transrectal ultrasonography, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine (PVR) measurement, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and QoL scoring systems. Results: The mean age for the HoLEP group was 68 ±5.0 years and 69 ±4.8 years for the low-power ThuLEP group. The mean prostate volume was 87 ±11.5 cc for HoLEP and 90 ±12.0 cc for ThuLEP, with no statistically significant differences between both groups (p = 0.1079). There was a statistically significant difference between both groups with regard the mean total operative time, which was 72 ±10.5 minutes for HoLEP and 92 ±11.5 minutes for ThuLEP, and the mean enucleation time, which was 50 ±8.5 minutes for HoLEP and 70 ±7.0 minutes for ThuLEP (p <0.001). No significant differences between the groups regarding catheterization time, hospital stay, or haemoglobin drop. Subjective and objective voiding parameters as IPSS and Qol scores, Q Conclusions: Although HoLEP offers shorter operative time, low-power ThuLEP is a feasible choice for surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction as it offers similar clinical 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.