Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33398423›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2021

A randomized controlled trial comparing high and medium power settings for holmium laser enucleation of prostate.

Hemendra N Shah, Mohamed H Etafy, Jonathan E Katz, Emmanuel A Garcia Lopez, Rashmi H Shah

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

5 authors.

Hemendra N ShahDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, USA. drhemendrashah@yahoo.co.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4273-5502
Mohamed H EtafyDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, USA.
Jonathan E KatzDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, USA.
Emmanuel A Garcia LopezMiller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, USA.
Rashmi H ShahUrolap Superspeciality Clinic and S. L. Raheja (Fortis Associate Hospital), Mumbai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo report the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes between medium power (MP) and high power (HP) laser settings for HoLEPs.

methodsThe primary objective was to compare the enucleation efficiency (EE) of HP- HoLEP (80-100 W) with MP-HoLEP (50 - 60 W). The secondary objectives were to compare treatment efficacy and safety between both groups. To show a 25% difference in EE, a sample size of 45 individuals per treatment arm was required (alpha = 0.05; Beta = 0.80). Patients demographic and perioperative factors were analyzed, including EE, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization, and length of hospital stay. The surgical outcome was evaluated with AUA symptom score, maximum flow rate, postvoid residual urine, and complications to assess differences between MP and HP HoLEP at baseline, 3 months, 1, and 5 years. Quantitative outcomes were compared with independent sample t tests (2-tailed) and qualitative outcomes were compared with chi-square tests.

resultsPreoperative data with the exception of indication for surgery were comparable in both treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in enucleation efficiency between the HP-HoLEP and MP-HoLEP laser setting (0.97 ± 0.47 vs. 0.85 ± 0.47 gm/min, p = 0.209). MP laser settings did not increase perioperative or postoperative complications and resulted in durable outcome comparable with HP laser settings at 5-year follow-up.

conclusionsMP-HoLEP is safe and efficient and does not compromise the outcome for HoLEPs when compared with HP-HoLEP.

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateLaser TherapyPostoperative ComplicationsProstateProstatic HyperplasiaAgedHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizeProstate-Specific AntigenSymptom AssessmentTreatment OutcomeProstate-Specific AntigenComplicationsHoLEPLaser power settingsLaser prostatectomyRandomized control trialTransurethral resection of prostate

Identifiers

PMID33398423

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.