ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Comparative Analysis of Three Surgical Instruments in the Treatment of High Critical Enucleation of Prostate.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe conducted a study to assess the effectiveness and safety of three different surgical instruments for enucleation in treating high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). These instruments include red laser, green laser, and plasma surgical equipment for enucleation of the prostate.
methodIn a retrospective analysis, 237 patients diagnosed with high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) underwent prostate enucleation using three different groups of surgical instruments at the Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University. These groups included the red laser device group (n = 67), the green laser device group (n = 61), and the plasma device group (n = 109). The study evaluated changes in prostate mass, blood loss, operation time, and postoperative efficacy at 1- and 6-month intervals, as well as any associated complications.
resultsThe red and green laser surgical instrument groups demonstrated superiority over the plasma group in several aspects. (1) Operation Time: *1* Red laser group: 87.9 ± 14.7 minutes; *1* Green laser group: 86.1 ± 15.3 minutes. (2) Blood Loss: *1* Red laser group: 30.1 ± 5.9 mL; *2*Green laser group: 30.9 ± 6.1 mL. (3) Temporary Urinary Incontinence: *1*Red laser group: 3 cases (4.48%); *2*Green laser group: 2 cases (3.28%). These differences were statistically significant. Additionally, postoperative indicators such as IPSS(International Prostate Prostate Symptom Score), QoL(Quality of Life), Q max(The Maximum Flow Rate), and RUV(Residual Urine Volume) showed significant improvement in all three groups compared to the preoperative state.
conclusionRed laser, green laser and plasma surgical devices were safe and effective in the treatment of high critical benign prostatic hyperplasia; laser surgical devices showed better performance in terms of operation time, intraoperative bleeding and 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.