ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2014
Comparison between complication rates of laser prostatectomy electrocautery transurethral resection of the prostate: A population-based study.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to lower postoperative complications after radical cystectomy - a review.Central European journal of urology · 2016Review
- The role of lasers in modern urology.Central European journal of urology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe compare the complication rates and length of stay (LOS) of laser transurethral resection of the prostate (L-TURP) versus electrocautery transurethral resection of the prostate (E-TURP) in a population-based cohort. L-TURP has shown enhanced intraoperative safety and equivalent efficacy relative to E-TURP in several high volume centres.
methodsRelying on the Florida Datafile as part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases (SID) between 2006 and 2008, we identified 8066 men with benign prostate hyperplasia who underwent L-TURP or E-TURP. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare baseline characteristics. A multivariable linear regression model was used to analyze the effect of L-TURP versus E-TURP on complication rates and LOS.
resultsOverall complication rates did not differ significantly for L-TURP compared to E-TURP in univariable (8.8 vs. 7.4%, p = 0.1) and multivariable analyses (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06, confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.32, p = 0.6). Individuals undergoing E-TURP were less likely to experience a LOS in excess of 1 day (46.2 vs. 59.7%, p < 0.001). A lower risk to experience a LOS in excess of 1 day was confirmed for patients undergoing L-TURP after a multivariable linear regression model (OR: 0.37, CI: 0.23-0.58, p < 0.001), but not for a LOS in excess of 2 days (OR: 0.96, CI: 0.83-1.10, p = 0.2).
conclusionsPatient characteristics and perioperative safety were similar for L-TURP and E-TURP patients. However, LOS patterns demonstrated a modest benefit for L-TURP compared to E-TURP patients.
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.