MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403536830 · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000004297

Comparative Analysis of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP) in BPH Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4403536830 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tarek Benzouak, Abdulmalik Addar, Michael A. Prudencio-Brunello, Ammar Saed Aldien, Steve E. Amougou, Ahmad AlShammari, Mohammed Ramadhan, Serge Carrier, Mélanie Aubé-Peterkin, Fadl Hamouche

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnucleationUrologyMeta-analysisProstatectomyProstateSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: As the prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) increases, the demand for surgical interventions that optimize patient outcomes while minimizing complications grows. This systematic review compares the efficacy, efficiency, and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP), providing insights for evidence-based surgical decision-making in BPH treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the study protocol was registered with Prospero (CRD42024509627). Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature up to February 1, 2024, to include studies that compare HoLEP and RASP in patients with BPH. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: HoLEP and RASP demonstrated equivalent effectiveness in treating BPH, as shown by similar functional outcomes such as maximum urinary flow rate and postvoid residual volume. However, HoLEP outperformed RASP in several operational efficiency metrics, reducing operative time by 49.48 minutes, hospitalization duration by 1.5 days, and catheterization period by 3.8 days. HoLEP also significantly reduced the risk of blood transfusions by 75%. Patients undergoing RASP were 1.87 times more at risk for grade 2 complications and 3.41 times more at risk for developing grade 3 or above complications. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP and RASP are effective for managing BPH. HoLEP shows advantages in recovery metrics and lower blood transfusion rates, while RASP benefits from ease of implementation in robotic-equipped facilities. Optimizing surgical outcomes will depend on reducing disparities in technique adoption, improving surgical training, and aligning with evidence-based guidelines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.040
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207