2175 GREENLIGHT HPS-120W VS GREENLIGHT XPS-180W LASER VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: A PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE OUTCOMES ANALYSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy and New Technology III1 Apr 20122175 GREENLIGHT HPS-120W VS GREENLIGHT XPS-180W LASER VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: A PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE OUTCOMES ANALYSIS Daniel Liberman, Pierre-Alain Hueber, Tal Ben-Zvi, Francois Peloquin, and Kevin C. Zorn Daniel LibermanDaniel Liberman Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Pierre-Alain HueberPierre-Alain Hueber Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Tal Ben-ZviTal Ben-Zvi Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Francois PeloquinFrancois Peloquin Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , and Kevin C. ZornKevin C. Zorn Montreal, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2348AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety, efficacy and short-term outcome of the new 532nm Greenlight XPS 180W laser system(AMS,Minnetonka, MI,USA) in comparison to the former generation HPS-120W system for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia(BPH) in a prospective non-randomized single-centre study. METHODS From June 2010 to September 2011, 145 consecutive patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to BPH were included; 60 patients were treated with HPS-120W and 85 with XPS-180W laser vaporization of the prostate. Perioperative variables, and complications were evaluated. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Q(max)), post-void residual urine (PVR), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), and quality of life score (Qols) were recorded at baseline, 1-, 3- and 6-months. Serum PSA was assessed at baseline and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS Mean age of the patients was 69.6 years and 67.2 years for the HPS-120W system and the XPS-180W system respectively. Moreover, the mean preoperative TRUS-prostate volume was 81.7ml and 78.2 ml for the HPS and XPS systems respectively. Patient preoperative characteristics were comparable including retention rate (52% and 47% respectively). Mean operative duration (79min vs. 44.2min; p<0.01) as well as mean laser time (37min vs. 24min; p<0.01) were significantly shorter for the XPS and HPS systems, respectively. Despite comparable energy delivery, mean fiber use (1.6 vs.1.0; p<0.01) and 3L Saline bags (4.1 vs. 7; p<0.01) were significantly lower for the XPS group. There were no significant differences in 30-day dysuria, incontinence, retention, retrograde ejaculation and erectile dysfunction (all p>0.05). With a mean follow-up of 11.8 and 7.5 months for HPS and XPS groups respectively, no urethral strictures or retreatments were observed. Baseline and clinical follow-up is summarized in Figure #1. 6 month -PSA reduction was significantly greater for the XPS group compared to the HPS group (54% vs. 78%; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS Both Greenlight systems provide safe and effective tissue vaporization properties with significant clinical improvement. The XPS-180W laser system appears to be more favorable with regards to reduced operative time, fibre need and PSA-reduction suggesting more effective tissue removal. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e877 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Daniel Liberman Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Pierre-Alain Hueber Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Tal Ben-Zvi Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Francois Peloquin Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Kevin C. Zorn Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».