Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38710824›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Real world propensity score matched analysis evaluating the influence of en-bloc vs. non en-bloc techniques, energy and instrumentation on enucleation outcomes for large and very large prostates.

Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Vineet Gauhar, Daniele Castellani, Khi Yung Fong, Mario Sofer, Marek Zawadzki, Nariman Gadzhiev, Giacomo Maria Pirola, Abhay D Mahajan, Pankaj Nandkishore Maheshwari and 8 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

18 authors.

Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. jonesurology@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-1283
Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Daniele CastellaniUrology Division, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti Di Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Khi Yung FongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Mario SoferDepartment of Urology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Marek ZawadzkiUrology Unit, St. Anna Hospital, Piaseczno, Poland.
Nariman GadzhievDepartment of Urology, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Giacomo Maria PirolaUrology Unit, IRCCS Multimedica, Multimedica Group, San Giuseppe Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Abhay D MahajanSai Urology Hospital and Mahatma Gandhi Mission's Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, India.
Pankaj Nandkishore MaheshwariUrology Unit, Fortis Hospital Mulund, Mumbai, India.
Vigen MalkhasyanUrology Unit, A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russia.
Sarvajit BiligereDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Mehmet İlker GökceDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Luigo CormioAndrology and Urology Unit, Bonomo Teaching Hospital, Andria, Italy.
Dmitry EnikeevDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Fernando Gómez SanchaDepartment of Urology and Robotic Surgery, ICUA-Clínica CEMTRO, Madrid, Spain.
Thomas R W HerrmannDepartment of Urology, Kantonspital Frauenfeld, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe primary aim of the study was to evaluate if en-bloc vs. non en-bloc made a difference to intra-, peri- and post-operative surgical outcomes of anatomical endoscopic enucleation (AEEP) in large (> 80 cc) and very large prostates (> 200 cc). The secondary aim was to determine the influence of energy and instruments used.

methodsData of patients with > 80 cc prostate who underwent surgery between 2019 and 2022 were obtained from 16 surgeons across 13 centres in 9 countries. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce confounding. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors associated with postoperative urinary incontinence (UI).

results2512 patients were included with 991 patients undergoing en-bloc and 1521 patients undergoing non-en-bloc. PSM resulted in 481 patients in both groups. Total operation time was longer in the en-bloc group (p < 0.001), enucleation time was longer in the non en-bloc group (p < 0.001) but morcellation times were similar (p = 0.054). Overall, 30 day complication rate was higher in the non en-bloc group (16.4% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.032). Rate of late complications (> 30 days) was similar (2.3% vs. 2.5%; p > 0.99). There were no differences in rates of UI between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, Qmax, pre-operative, post-void residual urine (PVRU) and total operative time were predictors of UI.

conclusionsIn experienced hands, AEEP in large prostates by the en-bloc technique yields a lower rate of complication and a slightly shorter operative time compared to the non en-bloc approach. However, it does not have an effect on rates of post-operative UI.

Indexed as

Postoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizeProstateRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUrinary IncontinenceComplicationsEndoscopic enucleation of the prostateLaser therapyProstatic hyperplasiaUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID38710824
PMCPMC11074046

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.