SynthesisThe Canadian journal of urology2026
Efficacy and safety of blue laser vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Canadian 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWhile novel 450 nm blue laser vaporization of the prostate (BLVP) has emerged as a promising treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), comprehensive evidence-based validation remains lacking. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BLVP for BPH.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, and Wanfang database up to 1 September 2025 (an updated search was performed on 31 December 2025). Single-arm meta-analyses summarized the absolute efficacy and safety of BLVP. For the comparison of BLVP with other surgical procedures, head-to-head meta-analyses or descriptive systematic reviews were performed based on the homogeneity of studies.
resultsAcross 23 included studies (1713 participants), single-arm meta-analysis showed favorable perioperative outcomes: mean operative time (26.46 min), bladder irrigation time (14.96 h), catheterization time (2.67 d), and hemoglobin drop (6.96 g/L). Postoperative IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QoL significantly improved with low complication rates. Compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), BLVP demonstrated favorable outcomes regarding shorter operation, irrigation, and catheterization times, less hemoglobin loss, and shorter hospital stays (all p < 0.05). While urinary functional recovery was comparable, BLVP exhibited lower risks of urinary incontinence (OR = 0.38) and secondary bleeding (OR = 0.15). Additionally, BLVP better preserved sexual function, demonstrating higher International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) scores at 6 months and a significantly lower incidence of retrograde ejaculation (OR = 0.07) than TURP. Preliminary studies suggest that the efficacy of BLVP is similar to that of 1470 nm and greenlight lasers.
conclusionPreliminary evidence suggests that BLVP appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure for BPH, demonstrating favorable trends in perioperative recovery and sexual function preservation. However, due to a lack of high-quality RCTs and low-to-moderate certainty of evidence, BLVP's equivalence or superiority to TURP remains inconclusive, warranting further large-scale trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42682042What 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.