1.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
Purpose:
To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation.
Results:
This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001).
Conclusions
US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.
2.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
Purpose:
To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation.
Results:
This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001).
Conclusions
US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.
3.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
Purpose:
To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation.
Results:
This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001).
Conclusions
US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.
4.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
Purpose:
To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation.
Results:
This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001).
Conclusions
US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.
5.Urethral Sparing versus Trans-Vesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy:A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative, Postoperative Outcomes, and Ejaculation Preservation
Yu Seob SHIN ; Shang Weon PAK ; Wonku HWANG ; Seon Beom JO ; Jong Wook KIM ; Mi Mi OH ; Hong Seok PARK ; Du Geon MOON ; Sun Tae AHN
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):387-395
Purpose:
To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes between traditional trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (TV-RASP) and the newly introduced urethral-sparing (US) RASP.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent TV-RASP (n=22) or US-RASP (n=20) performed by two experienced surgeons at two tertiary centers. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), uroflowmetry parameters, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction-Short Form (MSHQ-EjD-SF) scores, and maintenance of anterograde ejaculation.
Results:
This study analyzed 22 and 20 patients who underwent TV-RASP and US-RASP, respectively. Except for the TV-RASP group being older (70.0 years) than the US-RASP group (64.5 years) (p=0.028), no differences among other baseline characteristics existed. Perioperative outcomes indicated that hospital stay and catheterization time were significantly shorter in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001). At postoperative month 1, the median IPSS and QoL scores were significantly better in the US-RASP group than in the TV-RASP group (p=0.001 and p=0.002, respectively). However, at months 6 and 12, no significant differences were noted in IPSS, QoL, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual urine between the two groups. Sexually active patients in the US-RASP group maintained postoperative MSHQ-EjD functional and bother scores, whereas the TV-RASP group experienced a decline. Notably, 75.0% of patients in the US-RASP group preserved antegrade ejaculation, compared to only 20.0% in the TV-RASP group (p<0.001).
Conclusions
US-RASP is not inferior to TV-RASP in terms of functional outcomes. In addition, US-RASP yielded more rapid symptom improvements and preserved antegrade ejaculation than TV-RASP. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and to further investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of US-RASP.
6.A Machine Learning Model for Prostate Cancer Prediction in Korean Men
Sukjung CHOI ; Beomgi SO ; Shane OH ; Hongzoo PARK ; Sang Wook LEE ; Geehyun SONG ; Jong Min LEE ; Jung Ki JO ; Seon Hyeok KIM ; Si Eun LEE ; Eun-Bi CHO ; Jae Hung JUNG ; Jeong Hyun KIM
Journal of Urologic Oncology 2024;22(3):201-210
Purpose:
Unnecessary prostate biopsies for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) should be minimized. Therefore, this study developed a machine learning (ML) model to predict PCa in Korean men and evaluated its usability.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 928 patients who underwent prostate biopsies at Kangwon National University Hospital between May 2013 and May 2023. Of these, 377 (41.6%) were diagnosed with PCa, and 551 (59.4%) did not have cancer. For external validation, clinical data from 385 patients aged 48–89 years who underwent prostate biopsies from September 2005 to September 2023 at Wonju Severance Christian Hospital were also included. Twenty-two clinical features were used to develop an ML model to predict PCa. Features were selected based on their contributions to model performance, leading to the inclusion of 15 features. A meta-learner was constructed using logistic regression to predict the probability of PCa, and the classifier was trained and validated on randomly extracted training and test sets at an 8:2 ratio.
Results:
The prostate health index, prostate volume, age, nodule on digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen were the top 5 features for predicting PCa. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the meta-learner logistic regression model was 0.89, and the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.828, 0.711, and 0.909, respectively. Our model also showed excellent prediction performance for high-grade PCa, with a Gleason score of 7 or higher and an AUC of 0.903. Furthermore, we evaluated the performance of the model using external cohort clinical data and achieved an AUC of 0.863.
Conclusions
Our ML model excelled in predicting PCa, specifically clinically significant PCa. Although extensive cross-validation in other clinical cohorts is needed, this ML model is a promising option for future diagnostics.
7.Comparison of GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® in Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori Infection and Gastric Lesions
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Seon Hee LIM ; Ji Hyun PARK ; Jeong Hwan LEE ; Yeejin KIM ; Hyemin JO ; Ho-Kyoung LEE ; Jinju CHOI ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):148-156
Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.
8.Comparison of GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® in Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori Infection and Gastric Lesions
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Seon Hee LIM ; Ji Hyun PARK ; Jeong Hwan LEE ; Yeejin KIM ; Hyemin JO ; Ho-Kyoung LEE ; Jinju CHOI ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):148-156
Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.
9.A Machine Learning Model for Prostate Cancer Prediction in Korean Men
Sukjung CHOI ; Beomgi SO ; Shane OH ; Hongzoo PARK ; Sang Wook LEE ; Geehyun SONG ; Jong Min LEE ; Jung Ki JO ; Seon Hyeok KIM ; Si Eun LEE ; Eun-Bi CHO ; Jae Hung JUNG ; Jeong Hyun KIM
Journal of Urologic Oncology 2024;22(3):201-210
Purpose:
Unnecessary prostate biopsies for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) should be minimized. Therefore, this study developed a machine learning (ML) model to predict PCa in Korean men and evaluated its usability.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 928 patients who underwent prostate biopsies at Kangwon National University Hospital between May 2013 and May 2023. Of these, 377 (41.6%) were diagnosed with PCa, and 551 (59.4%) did not have cancer. For external validation, clinical data from 385 patients aged 48–89 years who underwent prostate biopsies from September 2005 to September 2023 at Wonju Severance Christian Hospital were also included. Twenty-two clinical features were used to develop an ML model to predict PCa. Features were selected based on their contributions to model performance, leading to the inclusion of 15 features. A meta-learner was constructed using logistic regression to predict the probability of PCa, and the classifier was trained and validated on randomly extracted training and test sets at an 8:2 ratio.
Results:
The prostate health index, prostate volume, age, nodule on digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen were the top 5 features for predicting PCa. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the meta-learner logistic regression model was 0.89, and the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.828, 0.711, and 0.909, respectively. Our model also showed excellent prediction performance for high-grade PCa, with a Gleason score of 7 or higher and an AUC of 0.903. Furthermore, we evaluated the performance of the model using external cohort clinical data and achieved an AUC of 0.863.
Conclusions
Our ML model excelled in predicting PCa, specifically clinically significant PCa. Although extensive cross-validation in other clinical cohorts is needed, this ML model is a promising option for future diagnostics.
10.Comparison of GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® in Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori Infection and Gastric Lesions
Yonghoon CHOI ; Nayoung KIM ; Seon Hee LIM ; Ji Hyun PARK ; Jeong Hwan LEE ; Yeejin KIM ; Hyemin JO ; Ho-Kyoung LEE ; Jinju CHOI ; Yu Kyung JUN ; Hyuk YOON ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Young Soo PARK ; Dong Ho LEE
Journal of Cancer Prevention 2024;29(4):148-156
Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail