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
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
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
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.
SpeakmanMKirbyRDoyleS, et al. Burden of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - focus on the UK. BJU Int2015; 115(4): 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12745
2.
CakirogluBAcarİCUyanıkBS.Outcomes of Rezum water vapor therapy for benign prostate obstruction with 1-year follow-up: largest real-world data from Turkey. Cent Eur J Urol2025; 78(2): 144–150. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2024.0224
3.
Zaman HuriHHui XinCSulaimanCZ. Drug-related problems in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a cross sectional retrospective study. PLoS One2014; 9(1): e86215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086215
4.
LaunerBMMcVaryKTRickeWA, et al. The rising worldwide impact of benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int2021; 127(6): 722–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15286
5.
JacksonEMKhooblallPLundySD, et al. A review of combined phosphodiesterase-5-Inhibitors and α-blockers versus phosphodiesterase-5-Inhibitors alone for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Arab J Urol2024; 22(1): 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2023.2220627
6.
NickelJCAaronLBarkinJ, et al. Canadian Urological Association guideline on male lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (MLUTS/BPH): 2018 update. Can Urol Assoc J2018; 12(10): 303–312. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5616
7.
MarchioniMPrimiceriGVecciaA, et al. Transurethral prostate surgery in prostate cancer patients: a population-based comparative analysis of complication and mortality rates. Asian J Urol2024; 11(1): 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2022.05.008
8.
WangBZhangSSunC, et al. Comparison between a transurethral prostate split and transurethral prostate resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment in a small prostate volume: a prospective controlled study. Ann Transl Med2020; 8(16): 1016. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-5462
9.
PortoJGBhatiaAMBhatA, et al. Evaluating transurethral resection of the prostate over twenty years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. World J Urol2024; 42(1): 639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05332-3
10.
EnikeevDOkhunovZRapoportL, et al. Novel thulium fiber laser for enucleation of prostate: a retrospective comparison with open simple prostatectomy. J Endourol2019; 33(1): 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0791
11.
BenzouakTAddarAPrudencio-BrunelloMA, et al. 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. J Urol2024; 213(2): 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004297
12.
KampantaisSDimopoulosPTasleemA, et al. Assessing the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP). A systematic review. Urology2018; 120: 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.012
13.
DaltonDCSheltonTMRiveraM.Laser technology advancements in the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Curr Urol Rep2024; 25(4): 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-024-01197-6
14.
AybalHCYilmazMBarlasIS, et al. HoLEP versus ThuFLEP in men with very large prostates (> 175 ml). World J Urol2025; 43(1): 109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05478-8
15.
ShveroACalioBHumphreysMR, et al. HoLEP: the new gold standard for surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Can J Urol2021; 28(S2): 6–10.
16.
TahaTSavinZLifshitzK, et al. Mini-HoLEP (MILEP) vs HoLEP: a propensity score-matched analysis. World J Urol2023; 41(10): 2801–2807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04562-1
17.
KosibaMFilzmayerMWelteMN, et al. Thulium fiber laser vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results of a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial. World J Urol2024; 42(1): 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04748-7
18.
EnikeevDTaratkinMBabaevskayaD, et al. Randomized prospective trial of the severity of irritative symptoms after HoLEP vs ThuFLEP. World J Urol2022; 40(8): 2047–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04046-8
19.
PetovVBabaevskayaDTaratkinM, et al. Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: prospective study of mid- and long-term outcomes in 1328 patients. J Endourol2022; 36(9): 1231–1236. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0029
20.
PerriDBesanaUMazzoleniF, et al. Ejaculation-sparing enucleation of the prostate with thulium: yag laser (ES-ThuLEP) versus thulium fiber laser (ES-ThuFLEP): outcomes on sexual function. World J Urol2025; 43(1): 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05483-x
21.
ElshalAMEl-NahasARGhazyM, et al. Low-power vs high-power holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: critical assessment through randomized trial. Urology2018; 121: 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.07.010
22.
TuccioASessaFCampiR, et al. En-bloc endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Urol Nefrol2020; 72(3): 292–312. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03706-6
23.
ChenCHChungCHChuHC, et al. Surgical outcome of anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Andrologia2020; 52(8): e13612. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13612
RoehrbornCGGangeSNShoreND, et al. Durability of the prostatic urethral lift: 5-year results of the L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol2017; 24(3): 8802–8813.
26.
McVaryKTRogersTRoehrbornCG.Rezūm water vapor thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from randomized controlled study. Urology2019; 126: 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.041
27.
NguyenDDLiTFerreiraR, et al. Ablative minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review of Aquablation, Rezum, and transperineal laser prostate ablation. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis2024; 27(1): 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00669-z
28.
JonesPAlzweriLRaiBP, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol2016; 14(1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.10.001
29.
SandhuJSBixlerBRDahmP, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): AUA guideline amendment 2023. J Urol2024; 211(1): 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003698
30.
CornuJNZantekPBurttG, et al. Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Urol2023; 83(6): 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.02.028
CalogeroAEBurgioGCondorelliRA, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of LUTS/BPH and erectile dysfunction. Aging Male2019; 22(1): 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13685538.2018.1434772
33.
CarissimoHCoscarellaMAl BarajrajiM, et al. Impact of mentoring in the perioperative safety of ThuFLEP technique. A two-center retrospective comparative study. Fr J Urol2025; 35(6–7): 102906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fjurol.2025.102906
34.
BulaiCAMultescuRDGeavletePA, et al. The impact of transurethral enucleation therapeutic approach in all-size benign prostatic obstruction pathology: from contemporary technological advances to evidence-based clinical progresses. Diagnostics2025; 15(4): 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15040416
35.
TanCWangCHuangJ, et al. 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-analysis. J Robot Surg2025; 19(1): 478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02577-x
36.
AlmusaferMNarayanYNnoromI, et al. Exploring pharmacological interventions in benign prostate hyperplasia: the role of cost-effectiveness analysis in daily practice and future directions. Expert Opin Pharmacother2024; 25(7): 907–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/14656566.2024.2362272
37.
GratzkeCBachmannADescazeaudA, et al. EAU guidelines on the assessment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol2015; 67(6): 1099–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.038
38.
MamoulakisCEfthimiouIKazoulisS, et al. The modified Clavien classification system: a standardized platform for reporting complications in transurethral resection of the prostate. World J Urol2011; 29(2): 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0566-y
