Comparative analysis of thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors:
- 29 April 2026
- journal article
- review article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Urologia Journal
- Vol. 93 (4) , 560-572
Abstract
Objective: To systematically compare thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in terms of efficacy, safety, and perioperative outcomes in men undergoing surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251057100). PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to March 2025 for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies that evaluated ThuFLEP versus HoLEP. The primary outcomes were perioperative parameters (operative time, catheterization duration, and length of hospital stay) and functional outcomes (International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax)). Secondary outcomes included blood loss, transfusion rate, and postoperative complications graded using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Results: Twelve studies comprising 1248 patients (624 ThuFLEP and 624 HoLEP) met the inclusion criteria. Both techniques yielded comparable functional improvements, with no meaningful differences in the postoperative IPSS, Qmax, or post-void residual volume. ThuFLEP showed perioperative advantages, including a shorter operative time (mean difference (MD) −12.4 min; 95% CI −20.1 to −4.7), shorter catheterization duration (MD −0.58 days; 95% CI −0.81 to −0.35), and shorter hospital stay (MD −0.73 days; 95% CI −1.02 to −0.44). Bleeding-related outcomes favored ThuFLEP, with lower estimated blood loss and fewer transfusions. Overall postoperative complication rates and high-grade complications (Clavien–Dindo ⩾ III) were similar between the groups. Conclusions: ThuFLEP provides functional outcomes equivalent to those of HoLEP while offering improved perioperative efficiency and favorable bleeding-related outcomes. Both procedures appear to be safe and effective for treating BPH. Further large multicenter randomized trials with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm durability and evaluate cost-effectiveness.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparative outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysisJournal of Robotic Surgery, 2025
- HoLEP versus ThuFLEP in men with very large prostates (> 175 ml)World Journal of Urology, 2025
- Ejaculation-sparing enucleation of the prostate with Thulium: Yag laser (ES-ThuLEP) versus Thulium Fiber laser (ES-ThuFLEP): outcomes on sexual functionWorld Journal of Urology, 2025
- Evaluating transurethral resection of the prostate over twenty years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trialsWorld Journal of Urology, 2024
- Laser Technology Advancements in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic HypertrophyCurrent Urology Reports, 2024
- Thulium fiber laser vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results of a prospective randomized non-inferiority trialWorld Journal of Urology, 2024
- Mini-HoLEP (MILEP) vs HoLEP: a propensity score-matched analysisWorld Journal of Urology, 2023
- Holmium laser with MOSES technology (MoLEP) vs Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in a real-world setting. Mid-term outcomes from a multicenter propensity score analysisWorld Journal of Urology, 2023
- Randomized prospective trial of the severity of irritative symptoms after HoLEP vs ThuFLEPWorld Journal of Urology, 2022
- The modified Clavien classification system: a standardized platform for reporting complications in transurethral resection of the prostateWorld Journal of Urology, 2010