MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreedmanMedicineArt historyPsychoanalysisArtHistoryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from 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 ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207