SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
The median lobe scenario. How to tackle this challenge best: systematic review and expert guidance.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the best endoscopic management for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and an enlarged median lobe.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from 2010 to February 2025. Eligible studies included patients with BPH and an enlarged median lobe treated endoscopically. Perioperative data and patients' outcomes were summarized descriptively.
resultsFrom the 613 initially identified studies, 17 were included. Procedures evaluated included holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP, n = 6), Rezūm (n = 4), GreenLight photovaporization (n = 2), Aquablation (n = 2), UroLift (n = 2) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP, n = 1). Studies either selectively treated the median lobe (ML-HoLEP and ML-TURP) or targeted the entire gland, including the median lobe (PVP, Aquablation, Rezūm, UroLift). Overall, all modalities provided significant improvements in urinary symptoms in patients with an enlarged median lobe. ML-HoLEP and ML-TURP demonstrated ejaculatory and continence outcomes comparable to minimally invasive approaches. Postoperative outcomes were reported inconsistently: only four studies provided a complete set of functional and sexual outcomes, and definitions of "median lobe" varied widely. Optilume or iTind procedures consistently excluded patients with significant median lobes. Heterogeneous definitions and incomplete reporting prevented quantitative analysis and definitive comparisons across modalities for this BPH sub-group.
conclusionThe procedures reviewed demonstrated favorable functional outcomes for men with an enlarged median lobe and can therefore be considered, while Optilume and iTIND should not be offered. Patients must be counselled about procedure-specific adverse events and the likelihood of surgical or medical retreatment. To guide future research and clinical practice, we present an expert guidance recommending standardized median-lobe definitions and a minimum outcome set.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41554936What 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.