ArticleLasers in medical science2026
HoLEP versus ThuFLEP: perioperative and functional outcomes in prostate enucleation.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the outcomes of laser enucleation techniques by evaluating the postoperative data of patients with benign prostate obstruction (BPO) undergoing ThuFLEP and HoLEP.
methodsThis retrospective study included men > 50 years with LUTS due to BPO who underwent HoLEP or ThuFLEP by a single experienced surgeon between January 2023 and January 2024. Patients were also stratified into subgroups according to prostate size (< 80 g vs. ≥ 80 g). The primary outcome was to compare success rate, operative duration, and efficiency of HoLEP and ThuFLEP; secondary outcomes included safety profile, catheter removal time, and long-term complications (stress urinary incontinence and stricture).
resultsA total of 163 patients (HoLEP: n = 94, ThuFLEP: n = 69) were included. Median operation time was longer in ThuFLEP (100 vs. 90 min, p = 0.001). Enucleation ratio, surgical efficiency, haemoglobin drop, ∆PVR, ∆Qmax, and ∆QoL were similar. IPSS improvement was greater in ThuFLEP (15 vs. 10 points, p = 0.023). In prostates > 80 g, ThuFLEP had longer operation and hospitalization times, but other perioperative and functional outcomes were comparable. Complication rates, catheterization time, and discharge duration were similar in all groups.
conclusionsBoth HoLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective for BPH treatment. ThuFLEP shows slightly longer operative time, especially in larger prostates, while functional improvements and complication rates are comparable.
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.