Observational studyThe Canadian journal of urology2026
Prostatic morcellation after HoLEP Enucleation: efficiency and safety of Storz DrillCut vs. Jena Surgical Multicut Solo.
Observational study 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsHolmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a widely accepted technique for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Developed in the 1990s, its safety and efficiency have improved with adenoma morcellation. Multiple morcellation devices exist, with oscillatory systems offering higher efficiency and safety. Notable among these are the DrillCut Storz™ (DC) and the Multicut SOLO Jena Surgical™ (MC). Currently, evidence on the efficiency of MC is limited, and no comparative analysis exists between oscillatory morcellators. The objective of this study is to compare the morcellation efficiency (g/min) of the DC and the MC. A secondary objective was to assess intraoperative injury rates associated with both morcellators.
methodsProspective, observational, non-randomised cohort that included patients over 40 years old with a surgical indication for BPH, recruited from the Urology Department at Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires (October 2023-June 2024). Dependent variables analyzed were morcellation efficiency and complications whereas independent variables were age, surgical time, PSA, prostate volume, PSA density, prior medication, urinary catheter use, and prostate cancer findings.
resultsA total of 264 patients were included (mean age: 70.1 years). The DC group had 98 patients whilst the MC group had 165 patients. Average morcellation time was 7.3 min (DC) and 9.1 min (MC) (p = 0.110). Mean adenoma weight morcellated was 49.9 g (DC) vs. 69.4 g (MC) (p < 0.001). Efficiency (g/min) was 10.5 (MC) vs. 8.3 (DC) (p < 0.001). Average surgical time was 84.4 min (DC) vs. 82 min (MC) (p = 0.541). Four intraoperative complications occurred in the DC group (4.1% vs. 0%; p = 0.005). All were minor bladder lacerations without postoperative management changes.
conclusionsThe MC demonstrated superior efficiency and a lower rate of complications. However, incidence of complications was low in both groups, supporting the safety of both devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42682048What 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.