SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with pulsed Thulium:YAG generators: a systematic review.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThulium:YAG laser generators have recently been developed, enabling pulsed energy delivery, further expanding the armamentarium of available laser devices for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP). The current systematic review summarizes all applications of pulsed Thulium:YAG generators during EEP. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn line with the PRISMA guidelines, the protocol of this systematic review was a priori registered to OSF database, while three different databases (PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library) were carefully screened from database inception to 4 May 2026. A dedicated search string was applied for all three databases: (pulsed OR hybrid) AND (thulium:YAG OR tm:YAG). A manual search was also performed where appropriate. Both the search strategy and the inclusion criteria were guided by the PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework.
resultsEight studies fulfilled the predefined criteria and were included in this systematic review. The purely pulsed Dornier Thulio generator was used in six studies, while the hybrid LISA RevoLix HTL generator was used in two studies. Three studies were non-comparative, while five studies were comparative. Four studies compared the pulsed Thulium:YAG and the Holmium:YAG laser technologies and one study compared the outcomes between miniaturized and standard pulsed Thulium:YAG EEP. Mean operative time across studies ranged from 40.8 ± 21.7 to 101.7 ± 18.5 minutes, while the enucleation and morcellation times ranged from 18.3 ± 8.9 to 83.7 ± 17.2 minutes and from 10.2 ± 10.1 to 18 ± 5.1 minutes, respectively. The Grade I-II and III-IV complications rates, according to Clavien-Dindo Classification ranged from 1% to 8.1% and from 0% to 15.6%, respectively. Finally, postoperative urinary incontinence rates ranged from 0% to 18.4%.
conclusionsAnatomic EEP with the pulsed Thulium:YAG generators seems to be feasible, safe and efficient, being associated with relatively low complications and incontinence rates. Both generators were associated with beneficial postoperative outcomes, regarding improved IPSS, QoL, PVR and Qmax, while Holmium:YAG and pulsed Thulium:YAG lasers were associated with comparable results in a limited number of studies, though. Additional studies on the topic, with larger cohorts and better study design, are essential to draw safer conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42633610What 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.