ArticleWorld journal of urology2018
Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate: a propensity score analysis.
Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Step-by-step anatomical photovaporization of the prostate using 180-W XPS greenlight laser: optimizing functional outcomes through energy modulation.The Canadian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety profile of GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate in ≥ 75 years old patients: results from the Italian GreenLight Laser Study Group.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- Outcome of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate with the GreenLight-XPS 180 Watt System Compared to Transurethral Resection of the Prostate.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Perioperative major acute cardiovascular events after 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate.International urology and nephrology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP).
methodsWithin a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q
results813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used (p = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP (p = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients' satisfaction (OR 1.19, p = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP.
conclusionOur results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient's satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29090340What 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.