Table 3 Multivariable linear and logistic regression analysis for the perioperative outcomes of patients with no PCa versus PCa undergoing HoLEP, ThuLEP, and TURP.

From: Perioperative outcomes of HoLEP, ThuLEP, and TURP in patients with prostate cancer: results from the GRAND study

Outcome

HoLEP

ThuLEP

TURP

Proportion (no PCa vs PCa)

Estimate (95% CI), p-value

Proportion (no PCa vs PCa)

Estimate (95% CI), p-value

Proportion (no PCa vs PCa)

Estimate (95% CI), p-value

Mortality

<0.1% vs 0.2%

1.39 (0.73, 2.48), 0.3

<0.1% vs <0.1%

0.31 (0.02, 1.55), 0.3

0.2% vs 0.9%

2.52 (2.37, 2.69), <0.001

ICU admission

0.9% vs 1.2%

1.14 (0.91, 1.41), 0.2

0.8% vs 0.8%

0.99 (0.58, 1.60), >0.9

1.5% vs 1.7%

1.01 (0.97, 1.05), 0.5

Transfusion

1.7% vs 2.5%

1.10 (0.94, 1.28), 0.2

2.3% vs 2.5%

0.86 (0.64, 1.15), 0.3

3.6% vs 8.8%

2.03 (1.99, 2.07), <0.001

Sepsis

0.5% vs 0.6%

1.14 (0.83, 1.54), 0.4

0.5% vs 1%

1.54 (0.92, 2.47), 0.08

0.7% vs 1%

1.16 (1.10, 1.22), <0.001

Acute kidney disease

0.9% vs 1.5%

1.31 (1.06, 1.59), 0.01

1.3% vs 1.5%

0.90 (0.61, 1.28), 0.6

1.1% vs 3.4%

2.39 (2.32, 2.47), <0.001

Postoperative incontinence

4.5% vs 4.6%

0.93 (0.83, 1.04), 0.2

2.5% vs 3%

1.11 (0.84, 1.44), 0.4

3.4% vs 4.8%

1.28 (1.25, 1.31), <0.001

Urinary retention

6.5% vs 7.3%

1.04 (0.95, 1.14), 0.3

6.7% vs 9%

1.23 (1.04, 1.44), 0.01

9.1% vs 13%

1.36 (1.34, 1.38), <0.001

Length of hospital stay

4d vs 4d

0.03 (−0.05, 0.10), 0.5

3d vs 3d

−0.15 (−0.30, 0.01), 0.06

6d vs 6d

0.78 (0.75, 0.81), <0.001

  1. All models are adjusted for age, diabetes, chronic renal failure, hypertension, and obesity. The bold cells indicate statistically significant p-values.
  2. CI confidence interval, HoLEP holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, ICU intensive care unit, PCa prostate cancer, ThuLEP thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, TURP transurethral resection of the prostate.
Back to article page