Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35439982›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2022

Transurethral plasmakinetic resection versus enucleation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of intraoperative safety profiles based on endoscopic surgical monitoring system.

Qi Jin, En-Guang Yang, Yun-Xin Zhang, Jun Mi, Zhi-Long Dong, Li Yang, Jun-Qiang Tian, Juan Wang, Zhi-Ping Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qi JinDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
En-Guang YangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Yun-Xin ZhangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Jun MiDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Zhi-Long DongDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Li YangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Jun-Qiang TianDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Juan WangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Zhi-Ping WangDepartment of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China. wangzplzu@163.com.
Lanzhou University · CNLanzhou University Second Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the intraoperative safety profiles of transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PK-TURP) with transurethral plasmakinetic endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (PK-EEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) based on endoscopic surgical monitoring system (ESMS).

methodsA total of 128 patients who were diagnosed with BPH were stratified based on prostate volume (PV) and accepted PK-EEP or PK-TURP treatment at 1:1 ratio. The ESMS as a novel method was used to monitor blood loss and fluid absorption during the operation. Clinical parameters such as intraoperative blood loss volume, fluid absorption volume, operation time, tissue weight of resection, preoperative and postoperative red blood cell count (RBC), hemoglobin concentration (HB), hematocrit (HCT), electrolyte, postoperative bladder irrigation time, indwelling catheter time, hospital stay time and other associated complications were documented and compared between two groups.

resultsNo significant differences in majority of baseline characteristics were observed among patients with different prostate volumes between two surgical methods. For patients with prostate volume < 40 ml, the average operation time of patients who received PK-EEP treatment was much more than those who received PK-TURP (P = 0.003). On the other hand, for patients with prostate volume > 40 ml, the PK-TURP surgery was associated with a significant increase in intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.021, in PV 40-80 ml group; P = 0.014, in PV > 80 ml group), fluid absorption (P = 0.011, in PV 40-80 ml group; P = 0.006, in PV > 80 ml group) and postoperative bladder irrigation time as well as indwelling catheter time but decrease in resected tissue weight compared to the PK-EEP treatment.

conclusionThe ESMS plays an important role in comparison of intraoperative safety profiles between PK-TURP and PK-EEP. Our data suggest that PK-TURP treatment is associated with a decreased operation time in patients with prostate volume < 40 ml and the PK-EEP treatment is associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss, fluid absorption and increased tissue resection for patients with prostate volume > 40 ml. Our results indicate that the size of prostate should be considered when choosing the right operation method.

Indexed as

Prostatic HyperplasiaTransurethral Resection of ProstateBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansMaleQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeBlood lossEndoscopic surgical monitoring system (ESMS)Fluid absorptionTransurethral plasmakinetic endoscopic enucleation of the prostateTransurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate

Identifiers

PMID35439982
PMCPMC9017005
OpenAlexW4224296302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.