SynthesisBJU international2026
Prostate morcellation devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and efficiency.
Synthesis in BJU international, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficiency and safety of different prostate morcellators used during prostate enucleation for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
methodsA systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between October 2012 and May 2025. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of morcellators used during prostate enucleation were included. Primary outcome was morcellation efficiency (g/min). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, device malfunction, and cost when available. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), RoB 2 tool, and European Association of Urology case-series criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses and multilevel meta-regression adjusted for prostate volume were conducted.
resultsA total of 22 studies comprising 5980 patients were included, most undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. The most frequently evaluated devices were the Piranha™ (Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany) and Lumenis VersaCut™ (Lumenis Ltd., Yokneam, Israel; 12 and 13 studies, respectively), followed by DrillCut™ (Karl Storz SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany), MultiCut™ (Asclepion Laser Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany), and Cyber Blade™ (Quanta System SpA, Milan, Italy) systems. Unadjusted weighted mean morcellation efficiency was 7.80 g/min (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.26-9.34 g/min) for Piranha, 4.70 g/min (95% CI 3.61-5.79 g/min) for VersaCut, 5.90 g/min (95% CI 3.16-8.64 g/min) for DrillCut, and 9.59 g/min (95% CI 4.78-14.39 g/min) for MultiCut. In volume-adjusted meta-regression using Piranha as reference, VersaCut remained significantly less efficient (-2.75 g/min; 95% CI -4.58 to -0.92 g/min; P = 0.003), with an even greater difference in prostates >70 mL (-4.34 g/min). Bladder mucosal injury was the most frequently reported complication; however, relatively rare across all devices. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly higher risk with VersaCut compared to Piranha (risk ratio 3.22, 95% CI 1.81-5.71), with low heterogeneity.
conclusionThis systematic review provides a contemporary clinical benchmark of the efficiency and safety of currently available prostate morcellators. Oscillating blade systems, particularly the Piranha morcellator, demonstrated higher morcellation efficiency and a more favourable safety profile than reciprocating blade devices, with the largest performance differences observed in patients with larger prostates.
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.