ArticleScientific reports2019
Comparison of Multipulse Laser Vaporesection versus Plasmakinetic Resection for Treatment of Benign Prostate Obstruction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Multipulse laser vaporesection of the prostate (MPVP) versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) for treatment of patients with benign prostate obstruction (BPO) in a prospective trial. From January 2016 to April 2017, a total of 144 patients were included in the cohort study, of whom 73 patients underwent MPVP and 71 underwent PKRP. All patients received pre-operative evaluation and followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Baseline characteristics, perioperative data and postoperative outcomes were compared. Early (within 30 days postoperatively) and late complications were also recorded. Preoperative data, including age, prostate volume, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaires (IIEF-5), the rate of anticoagulants use, Charlson comorbidity index were similar in two groups. Peri-operative parameters, including the rate of transfusion, and decrease in hemoglobin level were comparable. The operative time, the duration of catheterization and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MPVP group. The voiding parameters and the quality-of-life scores (QoL) improved significantly in both groups postoperatively. There was a significantly difference in QoL at 1-year in the MPVP group (p < 0.001), under mixed model analysis with random effect and Bonferroni correction. There were no significant differences in improvement of IPSS, Qmax, IIEF-5, residual prostate volume ratio and PSA level reduction at the 1-year follow-up. MPVP was significantly superior to PKRP in terms of a reduction in overall complication rate (21.9% vs 45.0%, p = 0.004). Both treatments led to comparable symptomatic improvements. MPVP demonstrates satisfactory efficiency, shorter catheterization time and shorter hospital stay. Our data revealed that MPVP may be a promising technique which is safe and favorable alternative for patients with BPO.
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.