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.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Anatomical 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Seven 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. CONCLUSION: ThuFLEP 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.