MP71-08 TWO YEAR DURABILITY OF THE PROSTATIC URETHRAL LIFT: MULTI-CENTER PROSPECTIVE STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology II1 Apr 2014MP71-08 TWO YEAR DURABILITY OF THE PROSTATIC URETHRAL LIFT: MULTI-CENTER PROSPECTIVE STUDY Claus G. Roehrborn, Daniel B. Rukstalis, Jonathan L. Giddens, Steven N. Gange, Neal D. Shore, Damien M. Bolton, Barrett E. Cowan, B. Thomas Brown, Kevin T. McVary, Alexis E. Te, Shahram S. Gholami, Prem Rashid, William G. Moseley, William T. Dowling, Sheldon J. Freedman, Peter F. Incze, K Scott Coffield, Fernando D. Borgess, and Peter T. Chin Claus G. RoehrbornClaus G. Roehrborn More articles by this author , Daniel B. RukstalisDaniel B. Rukstalis More articles by this author , Jonathan L. GiddensJonathan L. Giddens More articles by this author , Steven N. GangeSteven N. Gange More articles by this author , Neal D. ShoreNeal D. Shore More articles by this author , Damien M. BoltonDamien M. Bolton More articles by this author , Barrett E. CowanBarrett E. Cowan More articles by this author , B. Thomas BrownB. Thomas Brown More articles by this author , Kevin T. McVaryKevin T. McVary More articles by this author , Alexis E. TeAlexis E. Te More articles by this author , Shahram S. GholamiShahram S. Gholami More articles by this author , Prem RashidPrem Rashid More articles by this author , William G. MoseleyWilliam G. Moseley More articles by this author , William T. DowlingWilliam T. Dowling More articles by this author , Sheldon J. FreedmanSheldon J. Freedman More articles by this author , Peter F. InczePeter F. Incze More articles by this author , K Scott CoffieldK Scott Coffield More articles by this author , Fernando D. BorgessFernando D. Borgess More articles by this author , and Peter T. ChinPeter T. Chin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2167AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To report the two year results of a multi-center randomized blinded trial of the Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) in men with LUTS due to BPH. METHODS Men ≥ 50 years with LUTS due to BPH, an American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI) ≥ 13 and a peak flow (Qmax) ≤ 12 ml/s, and a prostate volume 30 to 80 cc, were randomized 2:1 between PUL and a sham procedure. After randomized comparison at 3 months, PUL patients were followed to two years. In the PUL small permanent transprostatic implants are placed to hold encroaching lobes in a retracted position and open the prostatic urethra. RESULTS 140 men were treated with PUL from February to December of 2011 in USA, Canada and Australia. In the US all but one procedure were conducted using local anesthesia. An average of 4.9 implants were used in prostates 30-77 cc. Adverse events were typically mild and transient, with most frequent being hematuria, dysuria, pelvic pain, urgency and urge incontinence. Sexual function was preserved with no incidence of de novo sustained erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction. Subjects experienced symptom relief by 2 weeks that improved to 3 months, was sustained to 12 months and modestly diminished to 24 months. Between 12 and 24 months, peak urinary flow showed improvement, and quality of life improvements were fully sustained. Between 12 and 24 months, there was 1 urinary tract infection routinely treated and no instance of urinary retention. Retreatment rates remained low with 5% by 12 months increasing to 7.1% by 24 months. Five subjects (7.4%), with an average AUASI improvement of 17.1, chose to exit the study between 12 and 24 months. CONCLUSIONS The Prostatic Urethral Lift provides a clinically meaningful improvement in LUTS and urinary flow sustained to two years. The procedure can reliably be performed under local anesthesia with low morbidity and preservation of sexual function. This study protocol will continue to evaluate PUL durability to five years. 2 Week 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 12 Month 24 Month AUASI n (paired) 137 137 137 133 123 67 Baseline 22.1±5.4 22.1±5.4 22.1±5.4 21.9±5.4 21.8±5.4 21.5±6.0 Follow-Up 18.0±7.9 12.3±6.9 11.0±7.6 11.0±7.3 11.1±7.0 12.6±7.6 Change -4.1 -9.8 -11.1 -10.9 -10.8 -8.9 % Change (95% CI) -17% (-10%,-24%) -44% (-38%,-49%) -50% (-44%,-56%) -49% (-43%,-55%) -49% (-42%,-55%) -40% (-31%,-50%) p-value < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 QOL n (paired) 137 137 137 133 123 67 Baseline 4.6±1.1 4.6±1.1 4.6±1.1 4.6±1.1 4.5±1.0 4.5±1.0 Follow-Up 3.6±1.6 2.6±1.7 2.4±1.7 2.1±1.7 2.2±1.6 2.1±1.5 Change -1.0 -2.0 -2.2 -2.5 -2.3 -2.4 % Change (95% CI) -17% (-9%,-26%) -42% (-35%,-49%) -47% (-39%,-54%) -52% (-45%,-59%) -51% (-45%,-58%) -51% (-41%,-61%) p-value < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 BPH II n (paired) 137 137 137 133 123 67 Baseline 6.8±2.8 6.8±2.8 6.8±2.8 6.8±2.8 6.6±2.8 6.3±3.0 Follow-Up 7.0±3.4 4.0±3.1 2.9±3.0 2.6±2.8 2.7±2.9 2.4±2.8 Change 0.2 -2.8 -3.9 -4.2 -4.0 -3.9 % Change (95% CI) 31% (7%, 54%) -33% (-18%,-47%) -56% (-47%,-65%) -60% (-52%,-68%) -59% (-49%,-68%) -58% (-44%,-72%) p-value < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Qmax (mL/sec) n (paired) 124 103 55 Baseline 8.1±2.4 8.1±2.4 8.5±2.4 Follow-Up 12.4±5.4 12.1±5.4 14.1±6.5 Change 4.4 4.0 5.6 % Change (95% CI) 64% (48%,80%) 59% (41%,77%) 78% (42%,114%) p-value < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e792-e793 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Claus G. Roehrborn More articles by this author Daniel B. Rukstalis More articles by this author Jonathan L. Giddens More articles by this author Steven N. Gange More articles by this author Neal D. Shore More articles by this author Damien M. Bolton More articles by this author Barrett E. Cowan More articles by this author B. Thomas Brown More articles by this author Kevin T. McVary More articles by this author Alexis E. Te More articles by this author Shahram S. Gholami More articles by this author Prem Rashid More articles by this author William G. Moseley More articles by this author William T. Dowling More articles by this author Sheldon J. Freedman More articles by this author Peter F. Incze More articles by this author K Scott Coffield More articles by this author Fernando D. Borgess More articles by this author Peter T. Chin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».