ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Prospective, non-randomized, controlled investigation of prostate (P) artery embolization (E) compared to holmium (Ho) laser enucleation of prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate volume 80-250 cc: the hope trial outcome at 1 year.
Article 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 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.
- [Prostate artery embolization-2026 update : Technique, evidence, and role in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare outcomes of Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) with Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) for management of symptomatic benign prostate hyperplasia in men with prostate volume 80 to 250 cc.
methodsIn this open-label prospective clinical-trial, 45 patients were enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to undergo PAE and HoLEP, respectively. The voiding parameter, sexual function, and complications were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12-months. The primary endpoint was a reduction in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 3 months. Secondary-outcomes were change in the International Index of Erectile Function-15 (IIEF-15), International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence (ICIQ-UI), Quality-of-Life (QoL), IPSS, uroflow (Qmax) and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). Adverse-events were recorded and graded using the Clavien–Dindo Adverse-event (CD-AE) classification.
resultsNo significant difference in median IPSS and quality of life improvement was observed at any follow-up point. PAE had significantly better IIEF-15 and ICIQ-UI outcomes than HoLEP at 1 and 3 months. HoLEP outperformed PAE in PSA reduction, Qmax, and post-void residual (PVR) improvement at 3 and 12-months. However, PAE had shorter hospital stays and avoided catheterization. No major adverse events (Clavien–Dindo ≥ grade 3) occurred in either group.
conclusionIn men with BPH and prostate sizes 80–250gm, PAE and HoLEP produce similar IPSS and QoL improvement at medium-term follow-up. PAE had better IIEF-15 and ICIQ-UI, in addition to the advantage of avoiding catheterization and reduced hospital stay. HoLEP performed better in PSA reduction, Qmax, and PVR improvement at 3 and 12 months. No serious adverse events occurred in either treatment group. Small sample size and short-term follow-up were important limitations.
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.