A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Network meta-analysis of the treatment safety and efficacy of different energy systems in prostate vaporization. | LitMetric

Network meta-analysis of the treatment safety and efficacy of different energy systems in prostate vaporization.

Lasers Med Sci

Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.

Published: June 2023

Many clinical trials and meta-analyses have examined vaporization with different energy instruments has been recognized by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) as a promising treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia. However, there is still a lack of evidence for a network comparison between different vaporization devices. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different energy systems for prostate vaporization. Pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed to analyze the outcome regarding surgery time, complications, short-term maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), and long-term Qmax. The Stata software was used for paired meta-analysis. A Bayesian NMA model with ADDIS software was applied to achieve the indirect comparison of different energy systems. Node-splitting analysis and inconsistency factors were used to test inconsistency for closed-loop indirect comparison. Fifteen studies were included in this study, involving three types of energy systems used in prostate vaporization: diode laser (wavelength: 980 nm, power: 200-300 W, mode: continuous), green-light laser (wavelength: 532 nm, power: 80-180 W, mode: continuous), and bipolar plasma vaporization (bipolar electrode, power: 270-280 W, mode: pulsed). In the conventional paired meta-analysis, significantly better short-term efficacy was found in green light laser vaporization, while no significant difference was detected in other parameters. According to the results of the NMA, a greenlight laser is recommended for prostate vaporization rather than the other two systems. When considering operation time, overall complications, short-term Qmax, and long-term Qmax, there were no significant differences among green-light laser vaporization, diode laser vaporization, and bipolar vaporization in BPH treatment. However, according to the probability ranking and benefit-risk analysis results, the green-light laser might be the best energy system for prostate vaporization in BPH treatment.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10103-023-03781-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prostate vaporization
20
energy systems
16
systems prostate
12
vaporization
12
green-light laser
12
laser vaporization
12
time complications
8
complications short-term
8
qmax long-term
8
long-term qmax
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!