How HoLEP Compares to Other BPH Procedures

Most benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) procedures work. The honest question isn’t “which one works” — it’s “which one fits this prostate, this patient, this decade.” The data below are the published facts, not the marketing.

HoLEP at a glance

The short version, in plain language:

  • Works for any prostate — small or very large. No gland is too big.
  • The most durable fix — the lowest chance of ever needing a repeat procedure.
  • Less bleeding, and often safe even for men who can’t stop blood thinners.
  • Removes the blockage completely — and the removed tissue is checked for cancer.
  • Most men go home the same day and are back to normal within a few weeks.

The rest of this page is the detailed, cited comparison against every other option — but if you read only one thing, that’s it.

A note on how this page is written

The published literature on BPH procedures is uneven. Some procedures have decades of randomized data; others have a single industry-sponsored pivotal trial. Some comparisons have been studied head-to-head; many have not. Where the evidence is strong, this page commits to a claim. Where the evidence is thin, it says so. Most marketing pages don’t do this. The result is that competing procedures look more obviously different in marketing than they are in the literature, and HoLEP’s actual advantages — which are real — get lost in noise about which procedure preserves which thing.

Two honest disclosures up front:

  • Industry sponsorship. The pivotal trials for Rezum, UroLift, Aquablation, and iTind are all sponsored by the device manufacturers. This doesn’t mean the data are wrong, but it means we read them carefully. The HoLEP and TURP literature, by contrast, is largely academic.
  • The head-to-head trial gap. No randomized trial has directly compared HoLEP to Rezum, UroLift, or iTind. Comparisons between HoLEP and these procedures rely on each procedure’s own pivotal trial plus registry data — useful, but not the highest grade of evidence.

With that framing, what follows is the honest case.

The headline comparison

HoLEPTURPRezumUroLiftAquablationGreenLight PVPiTindPAE
Prostate-size range30 g – 300+ g1<80 g (effective)30–80 mL230–80 mL, no median lobe3Up to ~150 mL4<80 mL (modern XPS)525–75 mL only6Size-independent (operator-dependent)7
5-year retreatment rate~0% surgical reoperation8~3–8% over 5+ yr94.4% surgical + 11.1% medication restart = 15.5% any1013.6% surgical11~3% surgical at 5 yr (WATER extension)12Variable; >10% in some series13~12% retreatment at 36 mo1420–35% at 5 yr in registry data15
Tissue removed?Yes (sent for pathology)YesNo (vapor)No (implants only)Yes (waterjet)No (vaporized — not testable)No (temporary implant)No (vascular occlusion)
Transfusion rate~2.5%16~8.8%16<1%<1%<2%~1% (lower than TURP)<1%<1%
Anticoagulation-compatibleYes (HoLEP transfusion ~2.5% vs TURP ~8.8% in the GRAND nationwide registry)16No (frequent bleeding)YesYesYesYes (PVP designed for hemostasis)YesYes
Hospital stay1 day; often same-day discharge172–3 daysOutpatientOutpatient1 dayOutpatientOutpatientOutpatient
Ejaculation preservedNo (retrograde ~75%)No (retrograde common)Often yesYes (designed claim)Often yes (short-term)18VariableOften yesOften yes
Long-term erectile functionBest preserved in head-to-head time-adjusted data19Comparable to HoLEPComparableComparableWorse than HoLEP at 5 yr (time-adjusted)19VariableLimited dataComparable

Abbreviations used in the table: TURP = transurethral resection of the prostate; PVP = photoselective vaporization (GreenLight); PAE = prostatic artery embolization. Each procedure is defined in full in its own section below.

The two rows that should anchor the decision for most patients are prostate-size range and 5-year retreatment rate. Almost everything else in the table is within the noise of patient preference.

The rest of this page walks through each procedure one at a time, with the strongest honest framing of what it does well and where the data say it falls short.

HoLEP vs. TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate)

TURP is the procedure HoLEP replaces. It has been the workhorse BPH operation for decades, and it works — particularly for moderate-sized prostates. Modern bipolar TURP has improved the safety profile considerably over the older monopolar approach.

The case for HoLEP over TURP rests on a few well-established differences. The largest contemporary dataset is the GRAND study — a series of analyses of the German nationwide inpatient registry (2005–2022). Its benign-prostatic-hyperplasia analysis of 1,355,845 surgical procedures found that HoLEP and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) had lower rates of transfusion, ICU admission, sepsis, and mortality than TURP.20 A separate GRAND analysis looked specifically at 221,768 men with prostate cancer undergoing these procedures — a group at higher bleeding risk — and measured a HoLEP/ThuLEP transfusion rate of 2.5% versus 8.8% for TURP (a roughly threefold reduction), with ICU admission also lower (1.2% vs 1.7%).16 The same advantage was demonstrated in randomized trials a decade earlier: Gilling’s 7-year HoLEP-vs-TURP RCT showed equivalent symptom improvement, lower retreatment, and less bleeding with HoLEP.8

The size-independence of HoLEP is its other major advantage over TURP. For prostates above roughly 80 grams, TURP becomes technically harder, slower, and bloodier. Kuntz’s RCT in prostates >100 mL showed HoLEP matched open simple prostatectomy (surgical removal of prostate tissue, traditionally through an incision) on symptom outcomes with substantially less morbidity.21 No TURP technique scales the same way.

The honest counter: TURP is widely available, surgeons everywhere know how to do it, and for a 50-gram prostate in a low-risk man it’s a reasonable operation. The case for HoLEP isn’t that TURP is dangerous. It’s that HoLEP is the more durable, less bloody, size-independent option, particularly as glands grow.

HoLEP vs. Rezum (water vapor therapy)

Rezum is a minimally invasive office-based procedure that uses pulses of steam to ablate (destroying tissue in place rather than removing it) prostate tissue. The pivotal trial (WAVE — McVary et al., 2016) randomized 197 men to Rezum vs. sham (a placebo procedure used for comparison in a trial), with the Rezum arm showing International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) reductions of about 11 points at 3 months that held to 5 years.22 The 5-year final report (McVary 2021) is the most important Rezum durability paper.10

Rezum’s strongest honest claim is sexual-function preservation. In the WAVE long-term follow-up, ejaculatory function and erectile function were largely preserved at 5 years. For a man whose primary concern is preserving ejaculation, this is the real advantage Rezum has.

The weaker claim — and the place where HoLEP wins — is durability. At 5 years, the Rezum cohort had a 4.4% surgical retreatment rate plus an 11.1% rate of restarting BPH medications, for a combined 15.5% “any retreatment” rate.10 HoLEP at the same timepoint has essentially no surgical retreatment in long-term cohorts.8 The other limit is prostate size: the Rezum pivotal trial enrolled men with prostates 30–80 mL only.2 For larger glands, there is no high-quality Rezum data.

No randomized trial has compared HoLEP to Rezum directly. Any cross-procedure statement on this page is based on each procedure’s own pivotal trial plus registry data — useful, but worth flagging.

HoLEP vs. UroLift (Prostatic Urethral Lift, PUL)

UroLift is an office-based procedure that uses small implants to pull the prostate tissue aside, mechanically opening the urethra without removing or destroying tissue. The pivotal LIFT trial randomized 206 men to UroLift vs. sham, showing meaningful symptom improvement at 3 months that the 5-year extension reported held in most patients.311

UroLift’s strongest honest claim is ejaculatory preservation. The BPH6 study compared UroLift to TURP directly: ejaculatory function declined ~40% in the TURP arm versus essentially no change in the UroLift arm.23 For men prioritizing ejaculatory function above other outcomes, this is real.

But the same BPH6 paper showed TURP delivered a larger improvement in symptom score than UroLift did — a point usually absent from the UroLift marketing. The 5-year LIFT extension reported a 13.6% surgical retreatment rate11 — meaning roughly 1 in 7 men needed another procedure within 5 years. By comparison, HoLEP retreatment rates in long-term cohorts are nearly zero.

UroLift also has hard anatomical limits. The pivotal trial enrolled men with prostates 30–80 mL and excluded men with an obstructive median lobe (a portion of the prostate that bulges up into the bladder and can block flow).3 A subsequent single-arm study (MedLift) extended use to median-lobe anatomy in 45 patients, but the evidence base is thin.24 For glands larger than 80 mL, or for men with significant median-lobe obstruction, UroLift is generally not appropriate.

As with Rezum, there is no head-to-head HoLEP vs. UroLift RCT.

HoLEP vs. Aquablation

Aquablation is a robotic waterjet ablation system (PROCEPT) that uses ultrasound-guided high-pressure saline to remove prostate tissue. The pivotal WATER trial randomized Aqua vs. TURP in prostates 30–80 mL25; WATER II then studied Aqua in larger prostates up to 150 mL in a single-arm cohort.4 Both have 5-year extension data.12

Aquablation is the closest direct competitor to HoLEP in terms of patient mental models — both are presented as “modern, size-flexible” alternatives to TURP. Aqua’s strongest honest claims are short-term ejaculatory preservation (well-established in the WATER trials and in matched cohort data; Kim 2025 propensity-matched (a statistical method for fairly comparing similar patients) analysis confirms this short-term advantage)26 and broad size range approaching HoLEP’s flexibility.

The case for HoLEP over Aquablation rests on three published findings:

1. Greater tissue removal and symptom improvement. In direct propensity-matched and network-meta-analysis comparisons, HoLEP produces greater Qmax (the peak urine-flow rate, a standard measure of how obstructed the stream is) improvement and greater prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction (a proxy for the amount of obstructing tissue removed) than Aquablation.2627 More tissue removed translates to more durable symptom improvement.

2. Long-term erectile-function preservation. A 2026 multicenter propensity-matched analysis of nearly 13,500 patients (Mahdi et al., presented at AUA 2026) studied new-onset erectile dysfunction after each procedure.19 When the analysis adjusted for time at risk using Kaplan-Meier (a method that accounts for how long each patient was followed) survival methods, HoLEP came out clearly ahead: at 5 years after surgery, 78.9% of HoLEP patients remained free of new ED, versus 62.2% of Aquablation patients — a 16.7-percentage-point advantage for HoLEP, with a statistically significant hazard ratio (a measure of how much a treatment lowers risk over time) of 0.83. Over five years, HoLEP wins by a substantial margin.

3. Tissue available for pathology. HoLEP enucleates (the prostate's inner core is removed whole, leaving the outer shell intact) tissue that goes to the pathologist; incidental prostate cancer is detected in roughly 10% of HoLEP specimens. Aquablation ablates tissue with the waterjet; nothing is available for pathology. For an older patient population with a non-trivial baseline rate of occult (hidden, not previously detected) prostate cancer, this matters.

Honest framing — what Aquablation does well: ejaculatory function preservation in the first year after surgery is real and is a legitimate reason a patient might choose Aqua. We should not strawman the procedure. The long-term, time-adjusted erectile-function advantage of HoLEP is a different question than short-term ejaculatory function, and conflating them would be dishonest.

HoLEP vs. GreenLight PVP (photoselective vaporization, 180W XPS)

GreenLight is a laser procedure that vaporizes prostate tissue rather than removing it as a specimen. The pivotal GOLIATH trial randomized modern 180W XPS GreenLight vs. TURP in 281 men and showed non-inferior outcomes at 6, 12, and 24 months.28

GreenLight has one strong honest claim: safety in anticoagulated (blood-thinning medication) patients. The procedure was designed for hemostasis, and there is published evidence supporting its use in men who cannot stop blood thinners.29

The case for HoLEP over GreenLight rests on the only direct head-to-head RCT between the two procedures — Elshal et al., 2015, published in J Urol.30 At 12 months, HoLEP produced significantly greater Qmax improvement, greater prostate-volume reduction, and greater PSA reduction than GreenLight 180W XPS. This is the kind of direct evidence the comparisons above with Rezum and UroLift are missing.

The other limit is prostate size. GreenLight 180W XPS is most effective in small-to-medium prostates; in glands larger than ~80 mL, the vaporization time and resulting tissue effect become a bottleneck, where HoLEP enucleation continues to scale linearly. And as with Rezum, the vaporized tissue is not available for pathology.

HoLEP vs. iTind (temporary implantable nitinol device)

iTind is a temporary nitinol (a flexible, springy metal alloy) implant that reshapes the prostatic urethra over 5–7 days before being removed. The MT-02 pivotal trial reported 2-year outcomes, with the 3-year follow-up published by Amparore et al.31 A 2021 sham-controlled RCT (Chughtai et al.) added the highest-grade evidence to date.32

iTind’s case rests on minimal recovery and preserved sexual function. No tissue is removed; the implant is in place for under a week.

The case for HoLEP rests on three points. First, iTind is FDA-cleared only for prostates 25–75 mL without an obstructive median lobe6 — the narrowest indication of any procedure on this page. Second, the evidence base is the smallest of the comparators here — a handful of trials, modest sample sizes, modest follow-up. Third, retreatment by 36 months is approximately 12%,14 high relative to HoLEP’s near-zero rate at the same timepoint.

iTind is the right choice for a narrow group of patients — small prostate, no median lobe, the lowest tolerance for surgical recovery, an explicit willingness to accept the retreatment risk in exchange for the lightest-footprint procedure. Dr. Quarrier performs iTind cases for appropriately selected patients at UR Medicine. The honest framing in a single sentence: if you are in the iTind indication and you understand the durability trade-off, it is a reasonable choice; if you fall outside the indication or you want a durable definitive operation, HoLEP is the better fit.

HoLEP vs. Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE)

PAE is performed by interventional radiology — not urology — and embolizes the arterial supply to the prostate, causing the gland to shrink and reducing obstruction. The UK-ROPE registry is the largest dataset7; the Carnevale group has reported long-term cohorts;33 the Abt RCT compared PAE to TURP.34

PAE has two honest strengths: it is fully non-surgical (an angiographic procedure, no general anesthesia required) and it has no upper size limit that the technique itself imposes.

The case for HoLEP over PAE rests on outcome data. The Abt RCT initially reported non-inferiority of PAE vs. TURP at 12 weeks; at the 2-year extension, the difference in IPSS reached 2.88 points favoring TURP (p=0.047), with PAE no longer non-inferior.35 The Bhatia 2024 network meta-analysis (a study that statistically pools results from many earlier studies) of PAE vs. laser enucleation procedures (HoLEP/ThuLEP) showed laser enucleation outperformed PAE on Qmax and post-void residual (the amount of urine left in the bladder after you finish urinating).36 Long-term retreatment rates from registry data range from 20% to 35% at 5 years15 — substantially higher than HoLEP. PAE outcomes are also notably operator-dependent, with results varying meaningfully between centers.

For most men who are surgical candidates, PAE is a worse trade. For a man who genuinely cannot tolerate any anesthetic procedure, PAE is a reasonable alternative to consider.

What the data actually settle

Of the eight procedures on this page, the published evidence supports these conclusions for most patients:

  • For a prostate above 80 g, HoLEP and Aquablation are the two procedures with the evidence to handle the size. HoLEP has the larger and longer follow-up evidence base and the direct propensity-matched data showing greater tissue removal and better long-term ED preservation.
  • For a man whose top priority is durability — not needing a second procedure or restarting medications — HoLEP has the lowest 5-year retreatment rate of any procedure on the comparison.
  • For a man on blood thinners who cannot stop them, HoLEP and GreenLight PVP are the two procedures with the strongest data; HoLEP additionally provides definitive symptom relief and tissue for pathology.
  • For a man whose top priority is short-term ejaculatory preservation, UroLift, Rezum, and Aquablation each have published advantages. The trade-off is durability.
  • For a man considering Aquablation specifically based on sexual-function marketing, the 2026 time-adjusted erectile-function data should be part of the conversation.

The decision should always be made with a urologist who knows your specific prostate and history. The point of this page is that the comparison is more nuanced than the marketing of any single procedure suggests — and that the honest reading of the evidence supports HoLEP as the most durable, most size-flexible, most pathology-informative option for most patients who are surgical candidates.

What to do next

To discuss whether HoLEP is the right procedure for your specific situation, call UR Medicine Urology at (585) 275-2838 to schedule a consultation with Dr. Quarrier.

References

Footnotes

  1. Elzayat EA, Elhilali MM. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): the endourologic alternative to open prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49(1):87-91. PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩

  2. McVary KT, Gange SN, Gittelman MC, et al. Minimally invasive prostate convective water vapor energy ablation: a multicenter, randomized, controlled study for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1529-1538. (WAVE pivotal — Rezum size range 30–80 mL.) PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩ ↩2

  3. Roehrborn CG, Gange SN, Shore ND, et al. The prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: the L.I.F.T. Study. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2161-2167. (LIFT pivotal — UroLift size range 30–80 mL, no median lobe.) PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. Desai M, Bidair M, Bhojani N, et al. Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large prostates (80-150 mL): 6-month results from the WATER II trial. BJU Int. 2019;124(2):321-328. (WATER II — Aquablation in large prostates.) PMID in cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩ ↩2

  5. Bachmann A, Tubaro A, Barber N, et al. 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 6-month safety and efficacy results of a European multicentre randomised trial — the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol. 2014;65(5):931-942. PMID in cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  6. Chughtai B, Elterman D, Shore N, et al. The iTind temporarily implanted nitinol device for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Urology. 2021;153:270-276. (iTind sham-controlled RCT — FDA size range 25–75 mL.) PMID in cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩ ↩2

  7. Ray AF, Powell J, Speakman MJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity-matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK-ROPE study). BJU Int. 2018;122(2):270-282. PMID in cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩ ↩2

  8. Gilling PJ, Wilson LC, King CJ, Westenberg AM, Frampton CM, Fraundorfer MR. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: results at 7 years. BJU Int. 2012;109(3):408-411. (HoLEP-vs-TURP 7-year RCT.) PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. GRAND study comparator data — TURP retreatment estimated from contemporary registries; see Pyrgidis 2025 (footnote 16). ↩

  10. McVary KT, Gittelman MC, Goldberg KA, et al. Final 5-year outcomes of the multicenter randomized sham-controlled trial of a water vapor thermal therapy for treatment of moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2021;206(3):715-724. (WAVE 5-year final — Rezum 4.4% surgical + 11.1% medication restart retreatment.) PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN, et al. Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol. 2017;24(3):8802-8813. (UroLift LIFT 5-year extension — 13.6% surgical retreatment.) PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Gilling PJ et al. WATER 5-year extension data; Bhojani N et al. WATER II 5-year data — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md for full citations. ↩ ↩2

  13. GreenLight retreatment data — see GOLIATH 24-month and post-marketing registry data in cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  14. Amparore D et al. iTind 36-month outcomes — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md for full citation. ↩ ↩2

  15. PAE registry retreatment rates summarized from UK-ROPE, Pisco long-term cohort, and Malling 2024 meta-analysis — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩ ↩2

  16. Pyrgidis N, Schulz G, Weinhold P, et al. Perioperative outcomes of HoLEP, ThuLEP, and TURP in patients with prostate cancer: results from the GRAND study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025. PMID: 40389710. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-025-00980-x. (221,768 procedures in men with prostate cancer — a higher-bleeding-risk group; HoLEP/ThuLEP transfusion 2.5% vs TURP 8.8%; ICU admission 1.2% vs 1.7%.) Note: AUA 2026 BPH Guideline (Rec 60) names HoLEP, ThuLEP, PVP, or PAE together as appropriate considerations for patients at higher bleeding risk; the favorable-bleeding-profile claim for HoLEP specifically is anchored to GRAND registry data rather than to a guideline ranking. See Citations/aua-2026-guideline.md. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  17. HoLEP same-day discharge — Scott’s published work on same-day-discharge protocol development; see bio-source.md. ↩

  18. Kim et al. 2025 propensity-matched analysis — Aquablation short-term ejaculatory preservation; see cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  19. Mahdi M, Hammad MAM, Chawareb EA, Yafi FA, Das AK. Comparing sexual function outcomes following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus robotically-assisted waterjet ablation of the prostate (Aquablation): a propensity-matched multicenter cohort analysis. J Urol. 2026;215(5S):e1083 (AUA 2026 abstract IP54-04). DOI: 10.1097/01.JU.0001191600.08337.62.04. See dedicated citation file Citations/mahdi-2026-aua-holep-vs-aqua-ed.md. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  20. Pyrgidis N, et al. Trends and perioperative outcomes of surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia in Germany: results from the GRAND study. Eur Urol Focus. 2025. PMID: 39922755. (GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data registry, 2005–2022; n=1,355,845 BPH procedures — HoLEP/ThuLEP had lower transfusion, ICU admission, sepsis, and mortality than TURP.) See C:\Obsidian\research\holep-literature\general-latest.md. ↩

  21. Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):160-166. (HoLEP-vs-open large-prostate RCT.) PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩

  22. McVary KT et al. WAVE pivotal — see footnote 2. ↩

  23. Sønksen J, Barber NJ, Speakman MJ, et al. Prospective, randomized, multinational study of prostatic urethral lift versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 12-month results from the BPH6 study. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):643-652. PMID in cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩

  24. Rukstalis D et al. MedLift single-arm extension of UroLift to median-lobe anatomy (2019). See cluster-comparators-mainstream.md. ↩

  25. Gilling PJ, Barber N, Bidair M, et al. WATER: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Aquablation vs transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2018;199(5):1252-1261. PMID in cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  26. Kim et al. 2025 propensity-matched analysis of HoLEP vs Aquablation — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩ ↩2

  27. Bhatia D et al. Comparing outcomes of Aquablation versus holmium laser enucleation of prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis. BJUI Compass. 2024;5(7):e454. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.454. See cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  28. Bachmann A et al. GOLIATH study — see footnote 5 and cluster-comparators-emerging.md for the 12-month and 24-month follow-up papers. ↩

  29. Knapp GL et al. GreenLight PVP in anticoagulated patients — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  30. Elshal AM, Elmansy HM, Elkoushy MA, Elhilali MM. Holmium:YAG transurethral incision versus laser photoselective vaporization for benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients on oral anticoagulants. Or: Elshal AM et al. J Urol. 2015 — direct HoLEP-vs-GreenLight 180W XPS RCT. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.097. See cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  31. Amparore D et al. iTind 3-year follow-up — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  32. Chughtai B et al. iTind sham-controlled RCT — see footnote 6. ↩

  33. Carnevale FC et al. PAE long-term outcomes — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  34. Abt D, Hechelhammer L, Müllhaupt G, et al. Comparison of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2018;361:k2338. See cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  35. Abt D et al. PAE vs TURP 2-year extension — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md. ↩

  36. Bhatia D et al. Network meta-analysis of PAE vs laser enucleation — see cluster-comparators-emerging.md for the exact citation. ↩

Make an appointment

Call UR Medicine Urology: (585) 275-2838

Calling does not commit you to surgery — it starts the conversation.

158 Sawgrass Drive, Suite 230, Rochester, NY · Operating at Strong Memorial Hospital and Highland Hospital