ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
High-frequency irreversible electroporation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia (GIANT): a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05306145 (A Prospective, Single-center, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of High Freqnence Irreversible Electroporation and Trans Urethral Resection Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia), which is not on this 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.
A Prospective, Single-center, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of High Freqnence Irreversible Electroporation and Trans Urethral Resection Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) but frequently causes retrograde ejaculation and bleeding. High-frequency irreversible electroporation (H-FIRE) is a non-thermal ablation technique offering tissue selectivity. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of H-FIRE versus TURP in men with symptomatic BPH. Methods: In this investigator-initiated, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at Shanghai East Hospital, China, men aged 40 years or older with symptomatic BPH (prostate volume 30-100 mL) were assigned (1:1) to undergo H-FIRE or TURP. To maintain blinding, a sham protocol involving perineal dressings and standardised irrigation was used. The co-primary outcomes were change from baseline in maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 3 months. Non-inferiority margins were -4 mL/s for Qmax and 3 points for IPSS. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05306145. Findings: Between June 30, 2022, and May 25, 2025, 118 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to H-FIRE (n = 59) or TURP (n = 59). H-FIRE was non-inferior to TURP for both primary endpoints: mean Qmax improvement was 7.95 mL/s with H-FIRE versus 7.84 mL/s with TURP (adjusted difference 0.11 mL/s, 95% CI -2.52 to 2.73; p = 0.001 for non-inferiority); mean IPSS reduction was -13.24 versus -13.75 (adjusted difference 0.50, -1.09 to 2.10; p = 0.001 for non-inferiority). Retrograde ejaculation occurred in 0% (0/59) of patients in the H-FIRE group compared with 54.2% (32/59) in the TURP group (p < 0.0001). H-FIRE was associated with greater haemodynamic stability (mean haemoglobin change +0.82 g/L [95% CI -1.84 to 3.48] versus -12.14 g/L [-14.72 to -9.55]; p < 0.0001) but required longer postoperative catheterisation (median 19 days [IQR 15.0-22.0] versus 4 days [4.0-5.0]). There were no grade 3-4 adverse events, and no deaths occurred in either group. Interpretation: At 3 months, H-FIRE provided short-term functional improvement non-inferior to TURP while completely preserving ejaculatory function and minimising blood loss. Although associated with longer temporary catheterisation due to tissue resorption, H-FIRE represents a viable function-sparing alternative for men prioritising sexual health and offers potential for ambulatory management. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82373048) and National Natural Science Foundation of China for Youth (No. 82303612).
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.