ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2020
[A (new) revolution in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia? Aqua-ablation and prostate embolization].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is one of the most common procedures in urology. Numerous alternative methods have been developed in recent years to overcome the potential limitations of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) while providing comparable effectiveness and less morbidity. In a randomized study with a currently available follow-up of 3 years, the Aquabeam® system has shown comparable functional results with a lower rate of adverse events compared to TURP. Sufficient functional results were also found in a cohort study in patients with prostate volumes up to 150 ml. However, the rate of transfusions raises the question of optimal coagulation. Further cohort studies with short-term follow-up confirmed the results of the randomized studies. Prostate artery embolization (PAE) has been compared to TURP in several randomized trials. In randomized studies, the reduction of BPO-associated symptoms after PAE is only slightly inferior to that after TURP. In contrast, the improvement of functional parameters after embolization is inferior to that after TURP. This is primarily due to the inferior desobstruction. In addition, long-term results from randomized studies are lacking, so that no final assessment has yet been possible with regard to the durability of the desobstruction. In summary, both Aquabeam® and PAE are potential alternatives to standard methods, which-in case of adequate patient selection-can supplement the operative armamentarium in the wider concept of an individualized therapy of 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.