Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32719929›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Endoscopic enucleation for prostate larger than 60 mL: comparison between holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic enucleation.

P- M Patard, M Roumiguie, S Sanson, J- B Beauval, E Huyghe, M Soulié, B Malavaud, X Gamé, P Rischmann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

P- M PatardDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Poulhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France. pm.patard@gmail.com.
M RoumiguieDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Poulhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
S SansonDepartment of Urology, Clinique du Pont de Chaume, 330 Avenue Marcel Unal, Montauban, France.
J- B BeauvalDepartment of Urology, Saint Jean Languedoc/La Croix du Sud Hospital, Toulouse, France.
E HuygheDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Poulhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
M SouliéDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Poulhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
B MalavaudDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Poulhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
X GaméDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Poulhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
P RischmannDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Poulhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
Hôpital Rangueil · FRUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FRClinique du Pont Saint-Vaast · FRClinique Saint Jean Languedoc · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare perioperative and functional outcomes of two different energy sources, holmium laser and bipolar current for endoscopic enucleation of prostate larger than 60 mL.

methodsA prospective, monocentric, comparative, non-randomized study was conducted including all patients treated for prostate larger than 60 mL, measured by transrectal ultrasound. Patients were assigned to each group based on the surgeons' practice. Perioperative data were collected (preoperative characteristics, operating, catheterization and hospitalization times, hemoglobin loss, complications) and functional outcomes (IPSS, IPSS Quality of Life (QoL), PSA) at 3 months and 1 year.

results100 patients were included in each group from October 2015 to March 2018. No differences between HoLEP and plasma groups were observed at baseline, except for mean IPSS score, IPSS QoL score and preoperative PVR that were significantly higher in the HoLEP group. Operating time (142.1 vs 122.4 min; p = 0.01), catheterization time (59.6 vs 44.4 h; p = 0.01) and hospitalization time (2.5 vs 1.8 days; p = 0.02) were significantly shorter in the plasma group. Complication and transfusion rate were no significantly different between HoLEP and plasma. No significant differences were observed concerning functional outcomes at 3 months and 1 year. The urinary incontinence rate was higher 21.1% vs 6.4% (p < 0.01) at 3 months in HoLEP group, but no difference was observed at 1 year.

conclusionHolmium and plasma are both safe and effective for endoscopic treatment for prostate larger than 60 mL. Operating, catheterization and hospitalization times were significantly shorter in the plasma group. The complication rate and functional outcomes were not significantly different.

Indexed as

ElectrosurgeryEndoscopyTransurethral Resection of ProstateAgedHumansLasers, Solid-StateMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizeProspective StudiesProstatic HyperplasiaTreatment OutcomeBipolar plasma enucleation of the prostateBPHEndoscopic enucleation of the prostateHigh prostatic volumeHoLEP

Identifiers

PMID32719929
OpenAlexW3045875506

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.