ArticleFrontiers in urology2026
Compound steep-pulse irreversible electroporation for prostate ablation in Beagle dogs: parameter evaluation and short-term safety.
Article in Frontiers in urology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the ablation performance and short-term safety of compound steep-pulse irreversible electroporation (CSP-IRE) and to refine treatment parameters for prostate ablation in a canine model. Methods: Twenty healthy male Beagles were included in a sequential, stepwise parameter-optimization experiment. Single-pulse and compound-pulse protocols were compared, followed by evaluation of electric-field parameters, interelectrode spacing, and electrode insertion depth. Ablation area was assessed histopathologically, while procedure-related muscle contraction and perioperative clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated. Results: The compound-pulse protocol produced a larger ablation area than the 5-μs and 50-μs single-pulse protocols (307.27 vs 39.30 and 64.44 mm Discussion: The compound-pulse protocol demonstrated greater ablation efficacy than the single-pulse protocols. The medium-parameter protocol provided a favorable balance between ablation area and procedure-related muscle contraction. These findings support the short-term feasibility of CSP-IRE and provide a basis for further parameter refinement and validation.
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.