ArticleCentral European journal of urology2024
Efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the Greenlight XPS 180W laser and simple prostatectomy for high-volume prostate hypertrophy: a comparative analysis.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Prostate Cancer and the Rise of Focal Laser Therapies: A Narrative Review of Benefits and Limitations.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment using simple prostatectomy (SP) and using photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with a 180W GreenLight XPS laser in patients with high-volume prostate hypertrophy. Material and methods: The study included 120 patients with LUTS symptoms caused by prostatic enlargement of more than 80 ml; 79 patients were treated with SP, while 41 were treated with PVP. The analysis included subjective the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL), and objective (Qmax), (Qave), and post-void residual volume (PVR) parameters before treatment and at an average of 38 months after surgical treatment. Early and late adverse effects and length of hospitalisation were assessed. Complication reports were performed according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system. Results: The analysis independently showed the effectiveness of both methods. Subjective parameters (IPSS, QoL), showed no significant differences. Patients treated with SP scored slightly better on objective parameters (Qmax, Qave, and PVR). Analysis of adverse effects and hospitalisation time were more favourable after PVP. Conclusions: SP and PVP were found to be comparable and highly effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of IPSS and QoL. Patients treated with the SP method obtained slightly better results of objective parameters such as Qmax, Qave, and PVR. Compared with SP, PVP has a more favourable safety profile.
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.