ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Comparison of PKRP and TUVP in the treatment of high-risk BPH and analysis of postoperative influencing factors.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A nomogram to predict hypoxemia in the post-anesthesia care unit after laparoscopic bariatric surgery.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy of plasma kinetic loop resection of the prostate (PKRP) and transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) for the treatment of high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and analyze the influence of the related factors on the operation of BPH. Methods: A total of 108 high-risk BPH patients diagnosed in our hospital from March 2018 to September 2021 were selected and randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, with 54 cases in each group. The control group was treated with TUVP, and the observation group was treated with PKRP. The international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL) index, maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), and residual urine volume (RU) were observed before and after treatment. The general information such as age, educational level, residence, and residence status of the patient, as well as clinical information such as surgical method, nocturia frequency, preoperative IPSS score, RU, medical history, and prostate texture, were also recorded. All patients were followed up for 1 month, and complications were recorded. Results: The IPSS score, QOL score, and RU of patients in the two groups were lower after treatment than those before treatment, and the Qmax was higher than that before treatment ( Conclusion: PKRP in the treatment of high-risk BPH patients can effectively reduce the IPSS score, QOL score, and RU and significantly increase Qmax, with fewer complications and a good prognosis. Patients' postoperative recovery was related to their age, surgical method, nocturia frequency, preoperative IPSS score, RU, and medical history. Therefore, choosing PKRP to treat high-risk BPH patients can effectively improve the postoperative urethral functional recovery of patients and reduce the occurrence of complications.
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.