Trial reportWorld journal of urology2026
Modified HoLEP technique: does it preserve ejaculation?
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Does a 1-cm safety margin represent a reproducible ejaculation-preserving HoLEP technique?World journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study is to evaluate whether the modified HoLEP technique can preserve antegrade ejaculation. The secondary objective is to assess postoperative prostatic symptoms and whether post-surgical ejaculatory function causes discomfort in patients.
methodsA prospective randomized study was conducted, including patients who underwent HoLEP at Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires during 7 months. Patients were prospectively allocated to two groups; one group underwent the standard HoLEP technique, while the other underwent the modified technique (preservation 1 cm of peri-veru-montanum tissue). The study concluded 6 months post-surgery. Validated questionnaires (IPSS and "MSHQ-EjD Short Form") were used to evaluate prostatic symptoms and ejaculatory function.
results75 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (37 patients) did not preserve peri-veru-montanum tissue, while Group B (38 patients) did. The mean change in IPSS for Group A was 13.9 (SD 5.9), and for Group B 14.2 (SD 6.2) (p = 0.835). The mean change in ejaculatory function was 7.5 (SD 5.2) for Group A and 8.1 (SD 4.1) for Group B (p = 0.619). 50 (66.6%) patients reported feeling "not at all" or "a little" bothered by their ejaculatory function post-surgery, while 12 (16%) patients reported feeling "very" or "extremely" bothered.
conclusionPreservation of peri-verumontanum tissue during HoLEP was not associated with improved preservation of antegrade ejaculation compared with the standard technique. Both groups showed significant improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42373859What 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.