MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2021724028 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2167

MP71-08 TWO YEAR DURABILITY OF THE PROSTATIC URETHRAL LIFT: MULTI-CENTER PROSPECTIVE STUDY

2014· article· en· W2021724028 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claus G. Roehrborn, Daniel B. Rukstalis, Jonathan Giddens, Steven Gange, Neal D. Shore, Damien Bolton, Barrett E. Cowan, BEDFORD BROWN, Kevin T. McVary, Alexis E. Te, Shahram S. Gholami, Prem Rashid, William G. Moseley, William T. Dowling, Sheldon Freedman, Peter Incze, K. Scott Coffield, Fernando D. Borgess, Peter Chin

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueUrological Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFreedmanMedicineArt historyPsychoanalysisArtHistoryPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of UrologyMême sujetUrological Disorders and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207