ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Is minimally invasive laser enucleation of the prostate a game changer? A propensity score-matched analysis comparing MILEP and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLaser enucleation of the prostate offers similar efficacy and safety outcomes as Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP) and open/ robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy. Recent technological progress has resulted in improved equipment design and the miniaturization of instruments in order to reduce urethral injury, friction and stricture rates. In this article we evaluated the safety, efficacy and complications of Minimally Invasive Laser Enucleation of Prostate (MILEP) and compared it with Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP). PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on the patients who underwent HoLEP and MILEP between March, 2022 and December, 2023 at our institute. These patients were followed up for a period of 6 months. The clinical demographic, perioperative and functional outcome data were compared.
resultsPropensity score matching yielded 137 patients in each study group. The median prostate size was similar; [55(42–74) cc] in HoLEP group vs. [54(40–70) cc (p = 0.442)] in the MILEP group. MILEP group had significantly less enucleation time: [ 34(25–40) mins vs. 38 (30–45) mins; p = 0.012)] and morcellation time [6(4–10) mins vs. 7(5–11) mins; p = 0.04]. HoLEP group had significantly higher dry weight of morcellated tissue [25(15–40) g vs. 20 (15–32); p = 0.03)]. Both modalities demonstrated similar enucleation efficiency; [(0.68 (0.42-1gm/min and 0.67 (0.43–0.91) gm/min, in HoLEP and MILEP respectively; p = 0.368)]. There was no significant difference in the incontinence rates at catheter removal and at 6 months [(10.2% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.839, and 1.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.498, respectively)], urethral stricture [(10.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively; p = 0.063] and bladder neck contracture rates [(1.5% vs. 2.9%, respectively; p = 0.684)].
conclusionMILEP demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to HoLEP, allowing safe management of small and medium sized glands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41942776What 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.