SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser versus conventional holmium:YAG laser in anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnatomical endoscopic enucleation is an established treatment for benign prostatic obstruction. Whether thulium fiber laser enucleation (ThuFLEP) improves outcomes over conventional holmium:YAG laser enucleation (HoLEP) remains uncertain. We compared the efficacy and safety of ThuFLEP versus non-MOSES-modulated HoLEP.
methodsWe performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of randomised and comparative cohort studies comparing ThuFLEP and conventional HoLEP in adult men. Six databases were searched. Outcomes included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality-of-life score, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual volume, hospital stay, and complications. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with RoB 2/ROBINS-I and GRADE.
resultsSeven non-overlapping comparative populations in eight publications included 3,509 patients. ThuFLEP was associated with a small statistically significant reduction in IPSS at 3 months (mean difference [MD] -1.04 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.81 to -0.28) of uncertain clinical relevance. Qmax differences were small and directionally inconsistent across follow-up (favouring HoLEP at 3 months and ThuFLEP at 6 and 12 months) and derived mainly from retrospective cohorts, with neutral randomised subgroups. Stress and urge urinary incontinence were less frequent overall (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96, and RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.68), but both estimates depended on one large registry cohort and were not robust to its exclusion. Most other complications and hospital stay showed no clear between-group difference. Limitations include few studies per outcome, heterogeneity, sparse safety events, inconsistent prostate-specific antigen reporting, and mostly low/very low certainty evidence.
conclusionThuFLEP and conventional HoLEP are clinically comparable with no definitive superiority of either laser. Platform selection should be individualised according to surgeon expertise, institutional resources, and patient characteristics. Future trials should standardise cost-effectiveness outcomes and investigate whether the distinct laser-tissue interactions impact adenoma clearance, PSA reduction, enucleation completeness, and long-term durability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42742780What 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.