MP62-05 BPH SURGICAL TRIFECTA OUTCOMES—CRITICAL EVALUATION OF KEY OPTIMAL OUTCOMES WITH COMPARISON OF AQUABLATION VS TURP
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology IV (MP62)1 May 2024MP62-05 BPH SURGICAL TRIFECTA OUTCOMES—CRITICAL EVALUATION OF KEY OPTIMAL OUTCOMES WITH COMPARISON OF AQUABLATION VS TURP Kevin C. Zorn, Andrew P. Steinberg, Bilal Chughtai, Brian Helfand, Rahul Mehan, and Dean Elterman Kevin C. ZornKevin C. Zorn , Andrew P. SteinbergAndrew P. Steinberg , Bilal ChughtaiBilal Chughtai , Brian HelfandBrian Helfand , Rahul MehanRahul Mehan , and Dean EltermanDean Elterman View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008904.63948.3b.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The concept of "success" in surgical procedures is crucial, in any field, and needs standardization to (1) assess the effectively patients' postoperative benefits, (2) evaluate the surgical quality within centers and operators, and (3) perform reliable comparisons among techniques. The present study sought to describe and analyze the patient level trifecta success of Aquablation and TURP for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. Clinical and surgical predictors of failure to achieve trifecta were investigated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively conducted clinical trials WATER (NCT02505919), WATER II (NCT03123250), and OPEN WATER (NCT02974751) included patients from the United States, Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Lebanon, and United Kingdom between 2017-2021. Trifecta was defined as the contemporary efficiency and safety presence of: (1): freedom from procedure-related sexual dysfunction (either erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction) (2) no pad-use urinary incontinence and (3) no interventional retreatment due to LUTS. The trifecta success rates were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Subanslysis in the Aquablation cohort was also conducted for prostate voulmes <80 cc and >80 cc. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of Trifecta failure. RESULTS: The cohort included 395 Aquablation patients that treated prostates up to 150cc and 65 TURP patients that treated prostates up to 80 cc. Mean prostate volumes and age for the Aquablation patients and TURP patients were 70 cc and 52 cc, and 67 and 66 years old, respectively. The achievement of trifecta success at one year was 88.6% for Aquablation and 73.8% for TURP (p=.0014). Trifecta success at 3 and 6 months for the Aquablation cohort comparing to the TURP cohort were. 91.4% vs 75.4% and 89.9% vs 73.8%, respectively. Subanalysis within the Aquablation cohort <80 cc and >80 cc demonstrated Trifecta rates at 12M of 90.3% and 85.5%, respectively. Patient age, preoperative PVR≥250 mL and larger prostate volume were independent predictors of trifecta failure. CONCLUSIONS: Aquablation has demonstrated better trifecta success compared to TURP while treating a much broader range of prostate sizes, particularly with the preservation of antegrade ejaculation. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1022 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Kevin C. Zorn More articles by this author Andrew P. Steinberg More articles by this author Bilal Chughtai More articles by this author Brian Helfand More articles by this author Rahul Mehan 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 | 0,034 | 0,110 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,003 |
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 ».