Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32124018›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Operative time comparison of aquablation, greenlight PVP, ThuLEP, GreenLEP, and HoLEP.

David-Dan Nguyen, Vincent Misraï, Thorsten Bach, Naeem Bhojani, James E Lingeman, Dean S Elterman, Kevin C Zorn

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

David-Dan NguyenFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5570-8792
Vincent MisraïDepartment of Urology, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.
Thorsten BachDepartment of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Harburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Naeem BhojaniDivision of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Center, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
James E LingemanDepartment of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Dean S EltermanDivision of Urology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kevin C ZornDivision of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Center, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. zorn.chumurology@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe BPH surgical armamentarium is composed of a rapidly expanding number of technologies and techniques. These include greenlight photovaporization of the prostate (PVP), greenlight enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and, more recently, the aquablation procedure. To the best of our knowledge, no direct comparison in operative time has been performed.

methodsData for this study were pooled from five sources. For aquablation, patient-level data from four studies of the aquablation procedure were provided by the device manufacturer as well as from a high-volume commercial user. PVP, GreenLEP, HoLEP, and ThuLEP were performed by high-volume, experienced experts. Endpoints included total operative time, resection time, and proportion of total operative time for resection. General linear models were used to evaluate the relationship between prostate volume (or other continuous predictors) and procedure time.

resultsTotal procedure time was related to prostate size. Except for the small prostate size range (size < 40 cc), at any given prostate volume, procedure time was highest for PVP, intermediate for LEPs, and lowest for Aquablation. The relationship between procedure time and prostate size (i.e., slope of the fitted lines) was 0.16 min/g for aquablation, 0.32 min/g, 0.28 min/g and 0.32 min/g for GreenLEP, HoLEP and ThuLEP, respectively, and 0.63 min/g for PVP.

conclusionIn our analysis of pooled data of multi-surgical techniques and technologies, aquablation provided the lowest operative time across all prostate volumes. PVP had the longest procedure time for prostates > 40 cc.

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateOperative TimeAblation TechniquesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansLaser TherapyMaleMiddle AgedProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaRetrospective StudiesThuliumWaterThuliumWaterAquablationGreenLEPGreenlight PVPHoLEPOperative timeThuLEP

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.