ArticleLasers in medical science2021
The feasibility and safety of photoselective vaporization for prostate using a 180-W XPS Greenlight laser in day-surgery pattern in China.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Haemocoagulase Agkistrodon in Patients Undergoing Transurethral Plasmakinetic Resection of the Prostate: A Pilot, Real-World, and Propensity Score-Matched Study.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility and safety of photoselective vaporization for prostate (PVP) with a 180-W XPS Greenlight laser as day surgery in the Chinese population. We retrospectively collected 114 cases undergoing the day surgery PVP and 198 cases undergoing conventional inpatient surgery PVP from April 2017 to March 2020. All patients' data including baseline characteristics, peri-operative data, post-operative outcomes, and complications were recorded and evaluated. The day-surgery procedures were successful in 110 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics in both groups. The catheterization time and hospitalization time were much shorter and economic cost was much lower in the day-surgery group than in the conventional inpatient surgery group. As for the post-operative complications, the incidence rate of the urinary retention is higher in the day-surgery group than in conventional inpatient surgery group. During the follow-up periods, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax), and post-void residual urine (PVR) improved significantly in both groups, and no differences were observed between the two groups. Compared to the conventional inpatient surgery, the day-surgery PVP is feasible and safe, which can reduce the hospitalization time and economic cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33118126What 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.