Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Prostate morcellation devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and efficiency.

Created on 09 Jul 2026

Authors

Stessy Kutchukian, Pietro Scilipoti, Mikael Abi Abdallah, Astrid La Rosa, Tristan Filler, Frédéric Panthier, Marie Chicaud, Stefano Moretto, Steeve Doizi

Published in

BJU international. Jul 08, 2026. Epub Jul 08, 2026.

Abstract

To systematically evaluate the efficiency and safety of different prostate morcellators used during prostate enucleation for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between October 2012 and May 2025. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of morcellators used during prostate enucleation were included. Primary outcome was morcellation efficiency (g/min). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, device malfunction, and cost when available. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), RoB 2 tool, and European Association of Urology case-series criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses and multilevel meta-regression adjusted for prostate volume were conducted.
A total of 22 studies comprising 5980 patients were included, most undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. The most frequently evaluated devices were the Piranha™ (Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany) and Lumenis VersaCut™ (Lumenis Ltd., Yokneam, Israel; 12 and 13 studies, respectively), followed by DrillCut™ (Karl Storz SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany), MultiCut™ (Asclepion Laser Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany), and Cyber Blade™ (Quanta System SpA, Milan, Italy) systems. Unadjusted weighted mean morcellation efficiency was 7.80 g/min (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.26-9.34 g/min) for Piranha, 4.70 g/min (95% CI 3.61-5.79 g/min) for VersaCut, 5.90 g/min (95% CI 3.16-8.64 g/min) for DrillCut, and 9.59 g/min (95% CI 4.78-14.39 g/min) for MultiCut. In volume-adjusted meta-regression using Piranha as reference, VersaCut remained significantly less efficient (-2.75 g/min; 95% CI -4.58 to -0.92 g/min; P = 0.003), with an even greater difference in prostates >70 mL (-4.34 g/min). Bladder mucosal injury was the most frequently reported complication; however, relatively rare across all devices. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significantly higher risk with VersaCut compared to Piranha (risk ratio 3.22, 95% CI 1.81-5.71), with low heterogeneity.
This systematic review provides a contemporary clinical benchmark of the efficiency and safety of currently available prostate morcellators. Oscillating blade systems, particularly the Piranha morcellator, demonstrated higher morcellation efficiency and a more favourable safety profile than reciprocating blade devices, with the largest performance differences observed in patients with larger prostates.

PMID:
42420210
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 09 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 1
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement