ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of low-power versus high-power holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an updated meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is the gold-standard surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, irrespective of the prostate size. However, the optimal laser power setting remains uncertain. High-power systems (80-100 W) are commonly used in clinical practice, while emerging evidence suggests that low-power settings (24-50 W) may offer comparable efficacy with potential functional and safety advantages. Objective: To compare the perioperative, functional, and safety outcomes of low-power versus high-power HoLEP based on randomized controlled trials. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT comparing low-power (24-50 W) and high-power (80-100 W) HoLEP, searching four electronic databases from inception till April 2025. The data extracted on primary outcomes include International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual volume (PVR), quality of life (QoL), and Clavien-Dindo-graded complications. Secondary outcomes included operative efficiency metrics. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bios (RoB 2) tool. Results: Four trials ( Conclusion: Low-power HoLEP is clinically non-inferior, providing comparable symptom relief and urinary flow improvement with better quality-of-life outcomes and more complete bladder emptying. Although operative times are modestly longer, the safety profile remains equivalent. These findings support low-power HoLEP as a viable surgical option.
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.