ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Role of Intraoperative Voiding Score in Prognostication Following Transurethral Resection of the Prostate.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is an established treatment option for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with bladder outlet obstruction. Recently, the intra-operative void score (IVS) has emerged as a potential objective tool for assessing TURP efficacy by evaluating irrigating fluid flow. This study aimed to investigate IVS's role in predicting outcomes of TURP. METHODOLOGY: This prospective observational study was conducted at the Institute of Kidney Diseases, Peshawar, Pakistan, from January to March 2025. Forty male patients aged ≥50 years with BPH underwent TURP. IVS was assessed by emptying the bladder, instilling 300 mL of glycine irrigation solution, and applying a standardized 50 newton force to the suprapubic area and the Void score was calculated both pre-resection and post-resection. Patients were stratified into two groups based on combined IVS (high vs low combined IVS) and based on post-resection IVS (high vs low post-resection IVS) and compared for outcomes. Our primary outcomes included a successful trial without catheter (STWOC) and catheter-free follow-up (CFF). Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted with a significance level set at p<0.05.
resultsThis study examined 40 subjects who underwent TURP during the study period. The mean ± SD age was 63.8 ± 8.9 years, and the average prostate size was 70.5 ± 14.3 grams. Sixteen patients had a low combined IVS score, and 24 had a high combined IVS score. A total of 14 patients had a low post-resection IVS, and 26 had a high post-resection IVS. Among these groups, the study population demonstrated balanced baseline characteristics and similar comorbidity profiles (all p>0.05). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that high combined IVS had 3.2-fold greater odds of STWOC (aOR=3.2, 95% CI:1.6-6.4, p=0.001) and 3.9-fold greater odds of CFF at six weeks (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=3.9, 95% CI:1.7-8.9, p=0.002). Similarly, high post-resection IVS was independently associated with improved outcomes, including 2.8-fold greater odds of STWOC (aOR=2.8, 95% CI:1.3-6.0, p=0.008), 3.1-fold greater odds of CFF (aOR=3.1, 95% CI:1.2-8.0, p=0.02).
conclusionIVS represents a promising tool for real-time assessment of TURP efficacy and prediction of postoperative outcomes. Higher combined and post-resection IVS were associated with significantly higher odds of STWOC and CFF, representing much better outcomes. This simple scoring system could potentially improve surgical decision-making and patient counseling regarding expected outcomes following TURP.
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.