Surgical Energy Devices in Urology
A reference to the energy modalities encountered in functional and reconstructive urologic practice — electrosurgery (monopolar and bipolar), lasers (holmium, thulium fiber, GreenLight, thulium:YAG, diode), ultrasonic devices (Harmonic scalpel), vessel sealing devices (LigaSure), aquablation (heat-free waterjet), and morcellation for tissue retrieval. Understanding the physics, tissue effects, and safety profile of each modality drives intraoperative decision-making and minimizes the thermal-spread, coupling, and visualization complications that account for most energy-related surgical injury.[1][2][3]
This article covers energy devices within WARWIKI's functional and reconstructive scope. Tumor-ablation modalities (RFA, MWA, cryoablation, HIFU for cancer) are outside the site's scope.
I. Electrosurgery — Fundamental Principles
Physics
Electrosurgery uses high-frequency alternating current (300 kHz – 3 MHz) to generate heat through tissue resistance. Tissue effects depend on the rate and depth of heat production:[4][5]
| Effect | Mechanism | Temperature |
|---|---|---|
| Cutting / vaporization | Rapid heating → explosive intracellular water vaporization → tissue fragmentation | >100°C |
| Coagulation / desiccation | Slow heating → protein denaturation without vaporization | 60–100°C |
| Fulguration | Non-contact sparking → superficial coagulation | — |
Waveform characteristics
| Mode | Waveform | Duty cycle | Tissue effect | Thermal spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pure cut | Continuous sine wave | 100% | Vaporization, minimal coag | Minimal |
| Coagulation | Interrupted bursts | 6–10% | Desiccation, hemostasis | Greater depth |
| Blend | Modulated | 25–75% | Combined cut + coag | Moderate |
At equal power settings, the peak voltage of coagulation mode is ~10× higher than pure cut — driving the greater thermal spread and the higher risk of capacitive coupling and insulation failure in coag mode.[6][7]
II. Monopolar vs. Bipolar Electrosurgery
Monopolar
Current flows from the active electrode, through the patient, to a dispersive (return) electrode pad.
Advantages: versatile, effective for large tissue volumes, lower equipment cost.
Risks and safety concerns:[8][9][10]
- Insulation failure — breaks in electrode insulation → unintended current discharge
- Capacitive coupling — induced current through intact insulation to adjacent conductors (particularly in laparoscopy)
- Direct coupling — unintended contact between active electrode and other instruments
- Dispersive electrode burns — inadequate contact with the return pad
- TUR syndrome — absorption of hypotonic irrigation (glycine, sorbitol) during monopolar TURP causing hyponatremia and fluid overload[11]
Bipolar
Current flows between two active electrodes at the surgical site — no dispersive pad, no current through the patient.[12][13]
Advantages:
- Saline irrigation — eliminates TUR syndrome risk entirely
- Less thermal spread — 0.07–0.15 mm vs. 0.59 mm for monopolar[14]
- Lower intraprostatic temperatures — 6.8–8.1°C rise vs. 24.2°C for monopolar[14]
- No dispersive electrode burns
- Reduced obturator reflex during bladder tumor resection[15]
III. Bipolar vs. Monopolar TURP
The definitive comparison from the 2019 Cochrane review (59 RCTs, 8,924 patients):[11][16]
| Outcome | Bipolar vs. Monopolar | Certainty |
|---|---|---|
| IPSS at 12 months | Similar | No clinically important difference |
| TUR syndrome | Reduced | Moderate certainty — favors bipolar |
| Blood transfusion | Reduced | Moderate certainty — favors bipolar |
| Erectile function | Similar | — |
| Urinary incontinence | Similar | Low certainty |
| Re-TURP rate | Similar | Low certainty |
Clinical implications:
- Bipolar permits longer resection times and larger prostate volumes without TUR syndrome risk
- Bipolar does not eliminate fluid absorption — fluid overload is still possible even without hypotonic TUR syndrome
- Shorter irrigation (WMD 8.75 h ↓) and catheterization duration (WMD 21.77 h ↓) with bipolar[16]
IV. Laser Energy in Urology
Lasers produce coherent, monochromatic light whose tissue effect depends on the wavelength-specific absorption characteristics of water and hemoglobin.[2][3][17]
| Laser | Wavelength | Primary absorber | Main application | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holmium:YAG | 2100 nm | Water | Lithotripsy, HoLEP, stricture incision | Gold standard; pulsed; 0.4 mm penetration |
| Thulium Fiber (TFL) | 1940 nm | Water (4× Ho:YAG absorption) | Lithotripsy, ThuLEP | Emerging; air-cooled; smaller fibers |
| Thulium:YAG | 2013 nm | Water | ThuVAP, ThuLEP | Continuous wave; vaporization + enucleation |
| GreenLight (KTP/LBO) | 532 nm | Hemoglobin | PVP for BPH | Excellent hemostasis; anticoagulated patients |
| Diode | 940–1470 nm | Variable | BPH vaporization, soft tissue | Compact; less-established evidence base |
Holmium:YAG — the gold standard
Properties: pulsed laser, 2100 nm, penetration 0.4 mm in water. Effective for all stone compositions. Requires water cooling; fibers ≥200 μm.[2][17]
Applications:
- Ureteroscopic lithotripsy — the workhorse for stones throughout the upper tract
- HoLEP (holmium laser enucleation of prostate) — the prostate-size-independent BPH treatment; 5-year durability comparable to open simple prostatectomy
- Urethral stricture incision — internal urethrotomy adjunct or stand-alone
- Bladder tumor ablation — small papillary tumors (outside primary WARWIKI scope)
- Upper-tract urothelial tumor ablation — niche functional preservation
Thulium fiber laser (TFL) — the emerging contender
Challenges Ho:YAG as the preferred lithotripsy laser on multiple axes:[17][18][19][20]
- 4× higher water absorption → more efficient stone ablation
- Longer pulse width, lower peak power → less retropulsion
- Smaller fiber compatibility (50–150 μm) → improved ureteroscope deflection
- Continuous wave capability → superior dusting
- Air-cooled, compact design → easier portability
Meta-analysis evidence (Uleri 2024 Eur Urol, Chua 2023 BJU Int, Chen 2025 Urolithiasis):
| Parameter | TFL vs. Ho:YAG |
|---|---|
| Stone-free rate (renal) | Superior (OR 3.14, P<0.05) |
| Operative time | Significantly shorter (SMD −1.24) |
| Retropulsion | Significantly lower |
| Intraoperative complications | Lower (OR 0.34) |
| Postoperative sepsis | Higher (RR 5.32) — requires investigation |
The sepsis signal is the notable cautionary finding. Mechanism hypotheses include higher intrapelvic pressures during continuous-wave dusting, greater fragment dispersion, and more sustained operative times in some protocols.
GreenLight laser — photoselective vaporization (PVP)
Mechanism: 532 nm wavelength preferentially absorbed by hemoglobin → rapid vaporization of vascular prostatic tissue.[3][21]
Evolution: 80 W KTP → 120 W HPS → 180 W XPS (current generation).
Advantages:
- Excellent hemostasis — ideal for anticoagulated patients
- Saline irrigation — no TUR syndrome
- Outpatient feasibility
Head-to-head with Thulium vaporization (Zhao 2024 meta-analysis):[22]
- Similar IPSS improvement, Qmax improvement, overall complication rates
- ThuVAP: shorter operative time (MD 8.56 min)
- PVP (GreenLight): lower transfusion rate
Laser — modality selection
| Clinical scenario | Preferred laser |
|---|---|
| Stone lithotripsy (most cases) | Ho:YAG (established) or TFL (emerging advantage) |
| HoLEP | Ho:YAG (mature evidence, training infrastructure) |
| ThuLEP | Thulium:YAG or TFL |
| BPH vaporization with anticoagulation | GreenLight (PVP) |
| Urethral stricture incision | Ho:YAG |
| Limited hardware budget | Ho:YAG (versatile across lithotripsy + HoLEP + strictures) |
V. Ultrasonic Energy — Harmonic Scalpel
Mechanism
Ultrasonic devices (Harmonic ACE, Harmonic LCS-C5) use mechanical vibration at 55,500 Hz to denature protein and coagulate tissue through frictional heating.[23][24]
Tissue effects:
- Temperature: 50–100°C (lower than electrosurgery)
- Lateral thermal spread: ~1 mm (vs. 0.24–15 mm for electrocautery)
- No smoke — only microaerosolized water droplets
- No electrical current through patient — safe near cardiac devices, critical nerves
- Produces protein coagulum that seals vessels
Urologic applications
- Laparoscopic / robotic nephrectomy and donor nephrectomy — hilar dissection, peri-renal fat mobilization[25][26]
- Partial nephrectomy — parenchymal mobilization; limited for vessels >3 mm; heminephrectomy NOT recommended
- Pelvic lymph node dissection — reduced thermal injury to nerves and vessels
- Radical prostatectomy dissection — adjunct to bipolar for fine dissection around NVB
Limitations
- Vessel size limit ~3 mm — inadequate hemostasis for arcuate or larger vessels
- Tip remains hot — post-activation contact can cause thermal injury
- Slower on dense tissue vs. electrosurgery
VI. Vessel Sealing — LigaSure
Technology
A computer-controlled bipolar system that delivers precise energy to permanently seal vessels up to 7 mm in diameter.[27][28]
Mechanism:
- Combines mechanical pressure + bipolar radiofrequency energy
- Denatures collagen and elastin in the vessel wall
- Creates a permanent seal with burst pressure >300 mmHg
Head-to-head energy device comparison
| Device | Max artery diameter | Burst pressure (artery) | Lateral thermal spread |
|---|---|---|---|
| LigaSure V | 6–7 mm | 536 mmHg | 4.5 mm |
| Harmonic ACE | 5 mm | 436 mmHg | 0.6 mm |
| Harmonic LCS-C5 | 3 mm | 363 mmHg | 0.3 mm |
| Standard bipolar | Variable | Unreliable | 1–6 mm |
Urologic applications[29][30][31]
- Radical prostatectomy — reduced operative time (113 vs 135.5 min) and blood loss (529 vs 642 mL) vs. standard bipolar
- Radical cystectomy — equivalent blood loss to staplers; significantly lower cost ($625 vs $1490 per case)
- Laparoscopic nephrectomy — safe for vessels ≤7 mm; no conversion to open in 170-case series
- Pelvic sidewall / retropubic dissection — useful when LigaSure's higher-diameter sealing capability is needed beyond what bipolar can safely close
VII. Aquablation — Heat-Free Waterjet BPH Therapy
Mechanism
Surgeon-guided, robot-executed, heat-free waterjet ablation using high-velocity sterile saline under real-time transrectal ultrasound guidance.[32][33][34]
Key features
- No thermal energy — preserves ejaculatory function and continence
- Automated, reproducible ablation — surgeon plans; robot executes
- Prostate size–independent — handles >80 mL volumes
- Outpatient feasible at experienced centers
- Single ~3–4 minute ablation phase after planning
Clinical evidence
From the Cochrane 2019 review (Hwang) and subsequent 5-year data:[33][34]
- IPSS improvement comparable to TURP
- Significantly lower retrograde ejaculation rate than TURP — the defining functional advantage
- Shorter resection time than TURP
- 5-year durability — sustained functional outcomes
Positioning
Aquablation has emerged as the functional-preservation BPH option for:
- Younger men prioritizing preservation of antegrade ejaculation
- Larger prostates where MISTs (UroLift, Rezūm) are inadequate
- Patients declining laser enucleation due to training or equipment limitations
VIII. Morcellation in Urology
Applications
- Tissue retrieval after endoscopic enucleation (HoLEP, ThuLEP, GreenLEP) — the bladder-contained enucleated prostate tissue is morcellated and aspirated
- Laparoscopic specimen extraction after nephrectomy (benign disease) — rare in modern practice given concerns with malignant disease
Morcellator types[35]
| Type | Mechanism | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Oscillating | Rotating blade reciprocates back-and-forth | Piranha (Wolf); VersaCut (Lumenis); most common for HoLEP |
| Reciprocating | Linear blade oscillation | Alternative workhorse |
Safety considerations
- Median morcellation efficiency: 11 g/min[35]
- Superficial bladder injury: rare; perforation: very rare
- Ultrasound guidance can improve safety in difficult cases[36]
- Malignant cells are liberated during morcellation — use entrapment bag if malignancy suspected
- Port-site seeding with laparoscopic morcellation of renal specimens: rare but reported[37]
Technique pearls
- Maintain visualization of the blade tip at all times
- Keep the morcellator in the bladder lumen — never advance while tissue is resisting
- Use adequate irrigation to maintain visibility and tissue flotation
- Avoid morcellation near the trigone or ureteral orifices
- If visualization is lost — STOP and clear the field
IX. Electrosurgical Safety Principles
The core principles for preventing energy-related injury apply across all electrosurgical modalities but are most relevant for laparoscopic monopolar:[8][9][10][13]
- Inspect insulation before each use
- Use the lowest effective power setting
- Avoid prolonged activation without tissue contact
- Use all-metal cannula systems in laparoscopy — reduces capacitive coupling vs. mixed metal-plastic
- Ensure proper dispersive electrode placement — large surface area, full contact, over well-perfused muscle
- Maintain visual contact with the active electrode during activation
- Prefer bipolar near critical structures — NVB, ureter, bowel, major vessels
- Avoid coagulation mode when cutting is intended — greater thermal spread at the same power setting
- Deactivate immediately after tissue effect achieved — "bursts" rather than sustained activation
Active electrode monitoring (AEM)
- Detects insulation failure and capacitive coupling in real time
- Shunts stray current through a specialized cannula to the dispersive electrode
- Recommended for laparoscopic monopolar surgery at high-volume centers
- Limited adoption due to cost and workflow considerations[9]
X. Summary Comparison
| Modality | Mechanism | Max vessel seal | Thermal spread | Key urologic applications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monopolar electrosurgery | RF current through patient | 2–3 mm | 0.24–15 mm | TURP, TURBT, open surgery |
| Bipolar electrosurgery | RF between two electrodes | 3–5 mm | 0.07–0.6 mm | Bipolar TURP/TURBT, laparoscopy |
| Ho:YAG laser | Pulsed light, water-absorbed | N/A | 0.4 mm | Lithotripsy, HoLEP, stricture |
| Thulium fiber laser | Continuous/pulsed, high water absorption | N/A | 0.4 mm | Lithotripsy, ThuLEP |
| GreenLight laser | Hemoglobin-absorbed | N/A | 1–2 mm | PVP for BPH |
| Harmonic scalpel | Ultrasonic vibration | ~3 mm | 0.3–1.5 mm | Laparoscopic nephrectomy; fine dissection |
| LigaSure | Bipolar + mechanical pressure | 7 mm | 4.5–6.3 mm | Radical prostatectomy, cystectomy, nephrectomy |
| Aquablation | High-velocity waterjet | N/A | None (heat-free) | BPH with ejaculation-preservation |
Key Takeaways
- Electrosurgery waveforms: continuous (cut) → vaporization with minimal spread; interrupted (coag) → deeper desiccation and higher voltage
- Bipolar TURP: equivalent efficacy to monopolar with reduced TUR syndrome and transfusion risk; allows saline irrigation and longer resection
- Thulium fiber laser: emerging as superior to Ho:YAG for renal stones on SFR, retropulsion, operative time — with a sepsis signal requiring investigation
- GreenLight PVP: excellent hemostasis for anticoagulated BPH patients
- HoLEP (Ho:YAG) is prostate-size-independent with durable 5-year outcomes — the gold standard for large prostates
- LigaSure seals vessels up to 7 mm — superior to Harmonic (3–5 mm) for named-vessel ligation
- Harmonic scalpel excels at fine dissection with minimal thermal spread — nephrectomy, lymphadenectomy, NVB dissection
- Aquablation is heat-free → preserves ejaculation and is prostate-size-independent — the functional-preservation BPH option
- Safety principles: lowest effective power, inspect insulation, maintain visualization, use bipolar near critical structures, prefer all-metal cannulas in laparoscopy
See Also
- Instruments — cautery / electrosurgery subcategory — physical instruments and handsets
- Robotics platforms — platform-integrated energy modalities
- Intraoperative Adjuncts — hemostatic agents — when energy hemostasis is inadequate
- Intraoperative Adjuncts — tissue sealants
References
1. Tucker RD, Kramolowsky EV, Bedell E, Platz CE. A comparison of urologic application of bipolar versus monopolar five French electrosurgical probes. J Urol. 1989;141(3):662–5. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)40927-x
2. Kronenberg P, Cerrato C, Juliebø-Jones P, et al. Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2023;41(12):3817–3827. doi:10.1007/s00345-023-04669-5
3. Rieken M, Bachmann A. Laser treatment of benign prostate enlargement — which laser for which prostate? Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11(3):142–52. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2014.23
4. Taheri A, Mansoori P, Sandoval LF, et al. Electrosurgery: Part I. Basics and principles. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70(4):591.e1–591.e14. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.09.056
5. Charoenkwan K, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Rerkasem K, Matovinovic E. Scalpel versus electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD005987. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005987.pub3
6. Khan JM, Rogers T, Greenbaum AB, et al. Transcatheter electrosurgery: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(12):1455–1470. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.01.035
7. Chino A, Karasawa T, Uragami N, et al. A comparison of depth of tissue injury caused by different modes of electrosurgical current in a pig colon model. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59(3):374–9. doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02712-3
8. Wu MP, Ou CS, Chen SL, Yen EY, Rowbotham R. Complications and recommended practices for electrosurgery in laparoscopy. Am J Surg. 2000;179(1):67–73. doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00267-6
9. Odell RC. Surgical complications specific to monopolar electrosurgical energy: engineering changes that have made electrosurgery safer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(3):288–98. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.01.015
10. Voyles CR, Tucker RD. Education and engineering solutions for potential problems with laparoscopic monopolar electrosurgery. Am J Surg. 1992;164(1):57–62. doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(05)80648-8
11. Alexander CE, Scullion MM, Omar MI, et al. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;12:CD009629. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009629.pub4
12. Kramolowsky EV, Tucker RD. Use of 5F bipolar electrosurgical probe in endoscopic urological procedures. J Urol. 1990;143(2):275–7. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)39932-9
13. Vilos GA, Rajakumar C. Electrosurgical generators and monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(3):279–87. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.02.013
14. Ko R, Tan AH, Chew BH, Rowe PE, Razvi H. Comparison of the thermal and histopathological effects of bipolar and monopolar electrosurgical resection of the prostate in a canine model. BJU Int. 2010;105(9):1314–7. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08907.x
15. Tzelves L, Mourmouris P, Skolarikos A. Does bipolar energy provide any advantage over monopolar surgery in transurethral resection of non-muscle invasive bladder tumors? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2021;39(4):1093–1105. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03313-w
16. Mamoulakis C, Ubbink DT, de la Rosette JJ. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):798–809. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.037
17. Pingle SR, Margolin EJ, Antonelli J, Lipkin ME. Holmium and thulium fiber lasers: what you need to know. Urol Clin North Am. 2025;52(3):365–374. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2025.04.013
18. Uleri A, Farré A, Izquierdo P, et al. Thulium fiber laser versus holmium:yttrium aluminum garnet for lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2024;85(6):529–540. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2024.01.011
19. Chua ME, Bobrowski A, Ahmad I, et al. Thulium fibre laser vs holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis: meta-analysis of clinical studies. BJU Int. 2023;131(4):383–394. doi:10.1111/bju.15921
20. Chen R, Song Y, Liu Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser versus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser in lithotripsy for urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2025;53(1):33. doi:10.1007/s00240-025-01709-0
21. Gravas S, Bachmann A, Reich O, et al. Critical review of lasers in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). BJU Int. 2011;107(7):1030–43. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09954.x
22. Zhao L, Yu X, Zhu Z, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of GreenLight and thulium laser vaporization techniques for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci. 2024;39(1):190. doi:10.1007/s10103-024-04143-7
23. Matthews B, Nalysnyk L, Estok R, et al. Ultrasonic and nonultrasonic instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2008;143(6):592–600. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.6.592
24. Nanduri B, Pendarvis K, Shack LA, et al. Ultrasonic incisions produce less inflammatory mediator response during early healing than electrosurgical incisions. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e73032. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073032
25. Helal M, Albertini J, Lockhart J, Albrink M. Laparoscopic nephrectomy using the harmonic scalpel. J Endourol. 1997;11(4):267–8. doi:10.1089/end.1997.11.267
26. Jackman SV, Cadeddu JA, Chen RN, et al. Utility of the harmonic scalpel for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 1998;12(5):441–4. doi:10.1089/end.1998.12.441
27. Landman J, Kerbl K, Rehman J, et al. Evaluation of a vessel sealing system, bipolar electrosurgery, harmonic scalpel, titanium clips, endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis vascular staples and sutures for arterial and venous ligation in a porcine model. J Urol. 2003;169(2):697–700. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000045160.87700.32
28. Hruby GW, Marruffo FC, Durak E, et al. Evaluation of surgical energy devices for vessel sealing and peripheral energy spread in a porcine model. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2689–93. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.121
29. Sengupta S, Webb DR. Use of a computer-controlled bipolar diathermy system in radical prostatectomies and other open urological surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71(9):538–40. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1622.2001.02186.x
30. Thompson IM, Kappa SF, Morgan TM, et al. Blood loss associated with radical cystectomy: a prospective, randomized study comparing Impact LigaSure vs. stapling device. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(1):45.e11–5. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.06.006
31. Ping H, Xing NZ, Zhang JH, et al. A single institution experience using the LigaSure vessel sealing system in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Chin Med J. 2011;124(8):1242–5.
32. Nguyen DD, Li T, Ferreira R, et al. Ablative minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review of Aquablation, Rezum, and transperineal laser prostate ablation. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024;27(1):22–28. doi:10.1038/s41391-023-00669-z
33. Hwang EC, Jung JH, Borofsky M, Kim MH, Dahm P. Aquablation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2:CD013143. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013143.pub2
34. Petrus Vermeulen L, Ordones FV, Zarrabi AD, Gilling PJ. Making waves: an update on Aquablation. Urol Clin North Am. 2025;52(4):535–545. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2025.07.009
35. Rijo E, Misrai V, Aho T, Gomez-Sancha F. Recommendations for safe and efficient morcellation after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. Urology. 2018;121:197. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.027
36. Tzou DT, Metzler IS, Tsai C, et al. Ultrasound-guided morcellation during difficult holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Urology. 2020;135:171–172. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.09.027
37. Varkarakis I, Rha K, Hernandez F, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Laparoscopic specimen extraction: morcellation. BJU Int. 2005;95 Suppl 2:27–31. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2005.05194.x