ArticlePloS one2021
Short-term efficacy and safety of second generation bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) for large benign prostate enlargement: Results from a retrospective feasibility study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Laser vs. bipolar prostate vaporization in bleeding-prone patients: a randomized trial and cutting-edge analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the efficacy and safety of a second-generation bipolar transurethral electro vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with the new oval-shaped electrode for large benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) with prostate volume (PV) ≥100ml. MATERIALS AND
methods100 patients who underwent second-generation B-TUVP with the oval-shaped electrode for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) or urinary retention between July 2018 and July 2020 were enrolled in this study. The patients' characteristics and treatment outcome were retrospectively compared between patients with PV <100ml and ≥100ml.
results17/41 (41.5%) cases of PV ≥100ml and 24/59 cases (40.7%) of PV <100ml were catheterised due to urinary retention. The duration of post-operative catheter placement and hospital-stay of PV ≥100ml (3.1±1.3 and 5.6±2.3 days) were not different from PV <100ml (2.7±1.2 and 5.0±2.4 days). In uncatheterised patients (N = 59), post-void residual urine volume (PVR) significantly decreased after surgery in both groups, however, maximum uroflow rate (Qmax) significantly increased after surgery only in PV <100ml but not in PV ≥100ml. Voiding symptoms and patients' QoL derived from International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS-QoL (IPSS Quality of Life Index) and BPH Impact Index (BII) scores, significantly improved after B-TUVP in both groups. Catheter free status after final B-TUVP among patients with preoperative urinary retention was achieved in 18/24 (75.0%) and 14/17 (82.1%) cases in patient with <100ml and ≥100ml, respectively. There was no significant difference in post-operative Hb after B-TUVP, which was 97.0±5.4% of baseline for PV <100ml and 96.9±6.1% for PV ≥100ml and no TUR syndrome was observed.
conclusionsThis is the first study investigating short-term efficacy and safety of second-generation B-TUVP with the oval-shaped electrode on large BPE. B-TUVP appears to be effective and safe for treating moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary retention in patients with large BPE.
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.