ArticleJournal of endourology2012
In-hospital outcomes and cost assessment between bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate.
Article in Journal of endourology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of bipolar TURP compared to monopolar TURP: A comprehensive literature review.Turkish journal of urology · 2022Article
- Usefulness of bicarbonate Ringer's solution as perfusate during transurethral resection of the prostate.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Bipolar TURP for the Treatment of Bladder Outflow Obstruction.Research and reports in urology · 2021Review
- The TURis System for Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.Applied health economics and health policy · 2016Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared the in-hospital outcomes between bipolar and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP and M-TURP, respectively) on a real-world practice using a large database. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients who underwent TURP were extracted from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, which is a case-mix administrative claims database in Japan. TURP procedures were classified into M-TURP and B-TURP groups according to intraoperative use or nonuse of D-sorbitol solution, respectively, which is the only nonelectrolyte bladder irrigation fluid for M-TURP available in Japan. To exclude causality among autologous and homologous transfusion events, we confined eligible hospitals to those in which no autologous blood preparation was undertaken for TURP and whose annual surgical caseloads were 15 cases or more. Multivariate analyses were conducted for homologous transfusion, postoperative complications, operative time, postoperative length of stay, and total costs.
resultsThere were 5155 M-TURP and 1531 B-TURP patients identified. The results for M-TURP vs B-TURP (effect sizes were evaluated with reference to M-TURP) were 2.3% vs 1.3% for transfusion (odds ratio [OR]=0.54; P=0.013), 3.3% vs 1.7% for postoperative complications (OR=0.46; P<0.01), 98 vs 116 minutes for operative time (20.5% increase; P<0.001), 8.65 vs 8.45 days for postoperative stay (3.6% reduction; P=0.003), and $6103 vs $6062 for cost (1.7% reduction; P=0.018).
conclusionB-TURP had significantly lower rates of transfusion and postoperative complications, but a longer operative time. The impacts of B-TURP on shortening the hospital stay and lowering the costs were of little clinical significance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.