Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38507108›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Incidence of complications and urinary incontinence following endoscopic enucleation of the prostate in men with a prostate volume of 80 ml and above: results from a multicenter, real-world experience of 2512 patients.

Vineet Gauhar, Daniele Castellani, Thomas R W Herrmann, Mehmet Ilker Gökce, Khi Yung Fong, Nariman Gadzhiev, Vigen Malkhasyan, Giacomo Maria Pirola, Angelo Naselli, Abhay Mahajan and 16 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors at 19 institutions in 12 countries.

Vineet Gauhar *Department of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Daniele Castellani *Urology Unit, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy. castellanidaniele@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-9190
Thomas R W HerrmannDepartment of Urology, Kantonspital Frauenfeld, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Mehmet Ilker GökceDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Khi Yung FongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Nariman GadzhievDepartment of Urology, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Vigen MalkhasyanUrology Unit, A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Giacomo Maria PirolaUrology Unit, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Multimedica Group, Milan, Italy.
Angelo NaselliUrology Unit, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Multimedica Group, Milan, Italy.
Abhay MahajanSai Urology Hospital and Mahatma Gandhi Mission's Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, India.
Pankaj Nandkishore MaheshwariUrology Unit, Fortis Hospital Mulund, Mumbai, India.
Sarvajit BiligereDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Azimdjon N TursunkulovUrology Division, AkfaMedline Hospital, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Furkat NasirovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Vladislav PetovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Marco DellabellaUrology Unit, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
Ee Jean LimDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Moisés Rodríguez SocarrásDepartment of Urology and Robotic Surgery, ICUA-Clínica CEMTRO, Madrid, Spain.
Marek ZawadzkiUrology Unit, St. Anna Hospital, Piaseczno, Poland.
Luigi CormioAndrology and Urology Unit, Bonomo Teaching Hospital, Andria, Italy.
Gian Maria BusettoDepartment of Urology, Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Jeremy Yuen-Chun TeohS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Bhaskar Kumar SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Dmitry EnikeevInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Mario SoferDepartment of Urology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Fernando Gómez SanchaDepartment of Urology and Robotic Surgery, ICUA-Clínica CEMTRO, Madrid, Spain.
Sechenov University · RUClínica Rementería · ESMultiMedica · ITNg Teng Fong General Hospital · SGUniversity of Foggia · ITAnkara University · TRCentral Asian University · UZChinese University of Hong Kong · HKFortis Hospital · INIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITMahatma Gandhi Mission Medical College and Hospital · INMarche Polytechnic University · ITMoscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry · RUNational University of Singapore · SGSingapore General Hospital · SGSpital Thurgau (Switzerland) · CHSt. Anna Hospital · DESt Petersburg University · RUTel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate complications and urinary incontinence (UI) after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) stratified by prostate volume (PV).

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with different energy sources in 14 centers (January 2019-January 2023). INCLUSION CRITERIA: prostate volume ≥ 80 ml. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: prostate cancer, previous prostate/urethral surgery, pelvic radiotherapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME: complication rate. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: incidence of and factors affecting postoperative UI. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1: PV = 80-100 ml; Group 2 PV = 101-200 ml; Group 3 PV > 200 ml. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of overall incontinence.

resultsThere were 486 patients in Group 1, 1830 in Group 2, and 196 in Group 3. The most commonly used energy was high-power Holmium laser followed by Thulium fiber laser in all groups. Enucleation, morcellation, and total surgical time were significantly longer in Group 2. There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complications and readmission rates. Incontinence incidence was similar (12.1% in Group 1 vs. 13.2% in Group 2 vs. 11.7% in Group 3, p = 0.72). The rate of stress and mixed incontinence was higher in Group 1. Multivariable regression analysis showed that age (OR 1.019 95% CI 1.003-1.035) was the only factor significantly associated with higher odds of incontinence.

conclusionsPV has no influence on complication and UI rates following EEP. Age is risk factor of postoperative UI.

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateLaser TherapyProstatic HyperplasiaTransurethral Resection of ProstateUrinary IncontinenceHumansIncidenceMaleProstateRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEndoscopic enucleation of the prostateLaser therapyPostoperative complicationsProstatic hyperplasiaUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID38507108
PMCPMC10954849
OpenAlexW4392986047

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.