ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Endoscopic enucleation for prostate volumes ≥ 200 ml: current evidence, technical challenges, and clinical implications].
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
backgroundAnatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) has become an established size-independent standard surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, evidence regarding treatment of patients with prostate volumes ≥ 200 mL remains limited. This review aims to evaluate the available literature on functional outcomes, complications, technical challenges, and alternative surgical approaches in patients with extremely large prostates. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies reporting outcomes of endoscopic enucleation in patients with prostate volumes ≥ 200 mL were included. Perioperative outcomes, functional results, complications, and comparisons with alternative surgical techniques were analyzed.
resultsThe available evidence consists exclusively of retrospective case series from specialized centers. Functional outcomes, including symptom relief, improvement in urinary flow rate, and reduction of post void residual urine, were comparable to those reported for smaller prostate volumes. However, operative and morcellation times were longer, and complication and transfusion rates were increased. Bleeding-related complications were found to correlate with prostate volume. Technical challenges mainly arise from altered anatomy during enucleation and morcellation. In selected cases, staged morcellation, open cystotomy for adenoma retrieval, or temporary perineal urethrotomy may be required. Compared with open simple prostatectomy, AEEP is associated with lower morbidity. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy represents a potential alternative in experienced centers but has not demonstrated clear functional advantages to date.
conclusionAEEP is an effective and safe treatment option for prostate volumes ≥ 200 mL. Despite greater technical complexity and higher rates of bleeding-related complications, functional outcomes are comparable to those achieved in smaller glands. In experienced hands, AEEP offers the best available evidence while maintaining lower morbidity than alternative surgical approaches. However, current evidence is derived almost exclusively from expert centers, limiting the generalizability of these findings to institutions with less experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42249149What 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.