PD19-04 THE PROSTATIC URETHRAL LIFT (UROLIFT) VERSUS THE THERMAL WATER VAPOR ABLATION (REZūM) FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE TREATMENT OF BPH: A COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENTS AND DURABILITY IN 3-YEAR CLINICAL OUTCOMES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Epidemiology & Evaluation (PD19)1 Apr 2019PD19-04 THE PROSTATIC URETHRAL LIFT (UROLIFT) VERSUS THE THERMAL WATER VAPOR ABLATION (REZūM) FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE TREATMENT OF BPH: A COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENTS AND DURABILITY IN 3-YEAR CLINICAL OUTCOMES Shaun Shepherd, Hossein Saddat, Bilal Chughtai, and Dean Elterman* Shaun ShepherdShaun Shepherd More articles by this author , Hossein SaddatHossein Saddat More articles by this author , Bilal ChughtaiBilal Chughtai More articles by this author , and Dean Elterman*Dean Elterman* More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555724.50703.49AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The minimally invasive radiofrequency thermal water vapour thermal therapy (Rezum) and the prostatic lift (Urolift) procedures offer minimally-invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostate hyperplasia. Rezum is a novel treatment modality that has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with LUTS. There have been no published head-to-head comparisons of the relative efficacy of the Rezum and Urolift systems. We report an indirect analysis of clinical symptoms and quality of life of two previously published studies of three year outcomes. METHODS: Clinical outcomes were obtained from published prospective data. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and IPSS - Quality of Life (QoL), Maximum flow rate (Q-max), post-void residual volume (PVR), Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII) scores along with MSHQ-EjD function and bother domains were outcomes of interest. Outcomes were assessed at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months. The Indirect between-group analysis was followed by a within-group analysis of changes across time points. An adjusted indirect comparison was conducted at 3 years for all outcomes. RESULTS: All baseline features were similar between the two groups except for Q-max which was higher in the Rezum, and both BPHII and age which were higher in the Urolift group. Compared to the Urolift, the Rezūm resulted in an 18.48% and 19.73% greater reduction in IPSS score at 24-months and 36-months (p=0.04). The improvement in the MSHQ-EjD function domain was significantly higher with Urolift at 3,12, 24, and 36 months. Although Q-max improvement was favoured the Rezum group at 3 months (p<0.01) this was not durable. At 36 months the Q-max improvements were not statistically different between the Rezum and Urolift. Regarding MSHQ-EjD bother, the improvements were similar at 12 months and thereafter in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis Rezum demonstrated improved relief of LUTS attributed to BPH, with a significantly greater 3 year IPSS improvements compared to Urolift. Despite limitations of the published Urolift study in respect to the exclusion of participants who presented with an obstructive median lobes, considerable relief of LUTS with acceptable morbidity and functional outcomes warrants further of comparison of Rezum against other minimally-invasive surgical therapies for BPH. Source of Funding: None. Toronto, Canada; New York, NY; Toronto, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e373-e373 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Shaun Shepherd More articles by this author Hossein Saddat More articles by this author Bilal Chughtai More articles by this author Dean Elterman* More articles by this author Expand All 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 | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,001 |
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 ».