Trial reportWorld journal of urology2026
Prospective single-center study comparing RealPulse
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with pulsed Thulium:YAG generators: a systematic review.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
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
purposeHolmium:YAG laser enucleation is the current golden standard for endoscopic enuclation of the prostate. Newer laser technologies, such as the RealPulse® Thulium:YAG system, offer different laser–tissue interactions that might affect enucleation efficiency and perioperative outcomes, yet comparative evidence remains limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety profile, and short- and intermediate-term outcomes of both lasers.
methodsIn total, 98 men with benign prostatic obstruction, refractory to medication, were included between 13/12/2023 until 13/06/2024. Demographics, intra-operative, post-operative data and PROMs were prospectively collected. Patients were randomly assigned to Ho:YAG laser (group A) or to RealPulse® Tm:YAG laser (group B). SPSS version 29 (SPSS Inc. Chicago. IL, USA) was used to analyse all the data.
resultsNo significant difference in demographic and pre-operative parameters was found, except for prostate volume which was significantly higher in group B (p = 0.014). Similar enucleation efficiency, coagulation duration, enucleated tissue weight, catheterization time and hospital stay were seen with both lasers. The improvement of Qmax at 3 months postoperatively was similar in both groups (14.41 ± 9.38 in group A vs. 11.12 ± 10.74 in group B; p = 0.349). As well as the improvement in IPSS score at 6 weeks, 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. ICIQ-UI reports have a similar decline after 6 weeks with normalization on 3 months and 1 year.
conclusionThe Ho:YAG Laser and the RealPulse® Tm:YAG laser showed similar efficacy, safety and short- and intermediate-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41504785What 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.