Surgical treatment of large-volume benign prostate hyperplasia: a comparative analysis of the outcomes of using standard and modified laparoscopic retropubic simple prostatectomy combined with temporary clamping of the internal iliac arteries and vesicourethral anastomosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The optimal approaches to the surgical treatment of large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have not yet been determined, but laparoscopic retropubic simple prostatectomy (LSP) is one of the preferred methods of surgical treatment for large-volume BPH. There are limitations to standard approaches to LSP, which necessitate the development of improved techniques. Objective. To provide comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of standard LSP and modified LSP combined with temporary clamping of the internal iliac arteries and vesicourethral anastomosis. Materials & methods. The present multicenter study included 300 patients (mean age 67.0 ± 5.2 years) who were randomly assigned to standard and modified LSP groups. The main efficacy criteria of the intervention during 6 months of observation were: the severity of symptoms of urinary disorders (IPSS score), quality of life, peak urine flow rate and residual urine volume. All complications developed during the postoperative follow-up were recorded. Results. Of the 300 patients, 149 underwent standard LSP, and 151 underwent a modified LSP. Significant differences were detected in the hospital stay (p = 0.032), the rate of decrease in hemoglobin (p = 0.020) and the irrigation time (p = 0.001). In addition, the use of the modified technique was associated with a lower incidence of short-term urinary incontinence (p = 0.031), urinary retention due to urethral catheter occlusion (p = 0.002), and incidence of bladder tamponade (p = 0.001). After 6 months of postoperative follow-up, the groups were comparable in most of outcomes, except for peak urine flow (23.9 ± 2.3 and 20.3 ± 1.9 ml/s in the modified and standard LSP groups, respectively, p = 0.001). After 6 months of postoperative follow-up, the modified LSP group had a lower incidence of bladder tamponade (p = 0.010), urge urinary incontinence (p = 0.002) and bladder neck contracture (p = 0.031). Conclusion. The effectiveness of the modified LSP as a method of surgical treatment of large-volume BPH is not inferior to those in the standard LSP group, and the safety profile suggests the feasibility of wider testing of the technique in practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".