ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Holmium laser en‑bloc vs bipolar and conventional monopolar TURBT for non‑muscle‑ınvasive bladder cancer.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the clinical safety, surgical efficacy, and oncologic outcomes of three transurethral resection techniques: the conventional monopolar transurethral resection of bladder tumor (CM-TURBT), the bipolar transurethral resection of bladder tumor (BP-TURBT), and the holmium laser en bloc resection of bladder tumor (HoL-ERBT) in patients with primary non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive patients with primary NMIBC treated between January 2020 and March 2025. All eligible patients undergoing CM-TURBT, BP-TURBT, or HoL-ERBT were analyzed. To minimize confounding related to non-random treatment allocation, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores was applied. Perioperative outcomes, complication rates, detrusor muscle inclusion, visible complete resection, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared using weighted analyses. Time-to-event outcomes were assessed with IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.
resultsAfter IPTW adjustment, HoL-ERBT was associated with significantly shorter resection times, lower hematuria rates, and reduced catheterization and hospitalization durations compared with CM-TURBT (p < 0.001 for all), while BP-TURBT demonstrated intermediate outcomes. Detrusor muscle inclusion was highest with HoL-ERBT (approximately 93%), compared with CM-TURBT (≈ 66%) and BP-TURBT (≈ 77%). IPTW-adjusted RFS at 12, 24, and 36 months did not differ significantly among the techniques.
conclusionHoL-ERBT provides meaningful perioperative and pathological advantages over conventional TURBT techniques in NMIBC without compromising short- to mid-term oncologic outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study with a follow-up period exceeding 24 months. Despite procedural advantages, similar recurrence outcomes suggest that further prospective randomized trials are warranted to clarify the long-term oncologic role of HoL-ERBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41579322What 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.