ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Comparing the clinical outcomes and learning curves of prostatic urethral lift performed by experienced versus naïve urologists.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo characterize the learning process by comparing the clinical outcomes and learning curves of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) performed by experienced versus naïve urologists.
methodsConsecutive patients treated with PUL at a tertiary center by an experienced urologist with > 100 PUL cases or by naïve urologists with no prior PUL experience were included in this study. Perioperative parameters, functional outcomes, complications, and retreatment rates were compared. Learning curves were assessed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) methodology. Multivariate regression identified predictors of operative time.
resultsThe median operative time was 20.0 min in both groups. Overall, the International Prostate Symptoms Score total decreased by a median of 9.0 points, quality of life score decreased by a median of 2.0 points, peak urinary flow rate increased by a median of 4.3 ml/sec, and post-void residual volume decreased by a median of 19.8 ml. There were no significant differences between the two groups in functional outcomes, complication rate, or operative time. CUSUM analysis revealed a three-phase learning curve, with proficiency achieved after 5 to 8 cases. Operative time was independently associated with obstructive median lobe (P = 0.003), number of implants (P = 0.005), implant deployment failure (P < 0.001), and experience (P = 0.024).
conclusionPUL can be safely and effectively performed by both experienced and naïve urologists with comparable outcomes. The learning curve is short but defined with proficiency achieved after 5 to 8 cases.
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.