Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27256183›Full record

Trial reportInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Open suprapubic versus retropubic prostatectomy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia during resident's learning curve: a randomized controlled trial.

Arie Carneiro, Paulo Sakuramoto, Marcelo Langer Wroclawski, Pedro Herminio Forseto, Alexandre Den Julio, Carlos Ricardo Doi Bautzer, Leonardo Monte Marques Lins, Andre Kataguiri, Fernanda Batistini Yamada, Gabriel Kushiyama Teixeira and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arie CarneiroHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, SP, Brasil.
Paulo SakuramotoDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Marcelo Langer WroclawskiHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, SP, Brasil.
Pedro Herminio ForsetoDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Alexandre Den JulioDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Carlos Ricardo Doi BautzerDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Leonardo Monte Marques LinsDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Andre KataguiriDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Fernanda Batistini YamadaDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Gabriel Kushiyama TeixeiraDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Marcos Tobias-MachadoDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Antonio Carlos Lima PompeoDepartamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, São Paulo, Brasil.
Faculdade de Medicina do ABC · BRHospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study compared the suprapubic (SP) versus retropubic (RP) prostatectomy for the treatment of large prostates and evaluated perioperative surgical morbidity and improvement of urinary symptoms. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this single centre, prospective, randomised study, 65 consecutive patients with LUTS and surgical indication with prostate volume greater than 75g underwent open prostatectomy to compare the RP (32 patients) versus SP (33 patients) technique.

resultsThe SP group exhibited a higher incidence of complications (p=0.002). Regarding voiding pattern analysis (IPSS and flowmetry), both were significantly effective compared to pre-treatment baseline. The RP group parameters were significantly better, with higher peak urinary flow (SP: 16.77 versus RP: 23.03mL/s, p=0.008) and a trend of lower IPSS score (SP: 6.67 versus RP 4.14, p=0.06). In a subgroup evaluation of patients with prostate volumes larger than 100g, blood loss was lower in those undergoing SP prostatectomy (p=0.003). Patients with prostates smaller than 100g in the SP group exhibited a higher incidence of low grade late complications (p=0.004).

conclusionsThe SP technique was related to a higher incidence of minor complications in the late postoperative period. High volume prostates were associated with increased bleeding when the RP technique was utilized. The RP prostatectomy was associated with higher peak urinary flow and a trend of a lower IPSS Score.

Indexed as

Learning CurveAgedAged, 80 and overHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLower Urinary Tract SymptomsMaleMedical Staff, HospitalMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesProstateProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaStatistics, Nonparametric

Identifiers

PMID27256183
PMCPMC4871389
OpenAlexW2397771586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.