2176 MID-TERM OUTCOMES OF GREENLIGHT VAPOR-INCISION OF THE PROSTATE (VIT): COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES TO STANDARD GREENLIGHT 120W HPS VAPORIZATION IN PROSTATE VOLUMES GREATER THAN 80CC
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy and New Technology III1 Apr 20122176 MID-TERM OUTCOMES OF GREENLIGHT VAPOR-INCISION OF THE PROSTATE (VIT): COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES TO STANDARD GREENLIGHT 120W HPS VAPORIZATION IN PROSTATE VOLUMES GREATER THAN 80CC Kevin Zorn, Gagan Gautam, Dan Liberman, Tal Ben-Zvi, Pierre-Allain Hueber, and Tom Deklaj Kevin ZornKevin Zorn Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Gagan GautamGagan Gautam Chicago, IL More articles by this author , Dan LibermanDan Liberman Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Tal Ben-ZviTal Ben-Zvi Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Pierre-Allain HueberPierre-Allain Hueber Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , and Tom DeklajTom Deklaj Chicago, IL More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2349AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The most common technique of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) involves centripetal tissue vaporization only. With less effective energy delivery over time (fiber degradation), poor surgical capsule (endpoint) discrimination while vaporizing and suboptimal effectiveness of Greenlight 120W-HPS in larger prostates, we sought to reproduce the principles of prostate enucleation and evaluate a hybrid technique (vapor-incision technique (VIT)) in glands >80cc. METHODS VIT was performed in 55 consecutive men with a prostate >80cc by a single surgeon (KCZ) between May-Dec 2010. G-LEP involved adenoma incision at 5 and 7-oclock positions followed by 3,9 and 12 o'clock incisions down to the surgical capsule. Side-fire vaporization along the capsule was carried out thereby detaching TURP-like tissue strips for retrieval. Functional followup included IPSS, Quality of Life (QoL), serum PSA, maximum flow rate (Qmax), post void residual (PVR) determinations and volumetric measurements with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS). Functional evaluations were performed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Outcomes were compared to a sizematched-cohort of 50 men who previously underwent vaporization-only PVP. Change in baseline outcomes and complication rates were retrospectively assessed. RESULTS Mean age, PSA and prostate size for the VIT and control PVP cohorts were 69vs67yrs, 5.1vs4.9ng/mL and 89vs92g, respectively (all p>0.05). Mean laser time, operative time and energy usage were 38vs53min; 67 vs 88min; and 229 vs 345kJ, respectively (p<0.05 for all). At 12 months, mean IPSS improved 69%vs54%, Qmax increased by 221%vs164% and PVR decreased by 89%vs73%, respectively (p<0.05 for all). Mean VIT extracted tissue weight was 27.2g(range 19-52). Mean decrease in pre-operative PSA at 12 months was 73%vs52% (p<0.01), respectively. Hospital stay, catheterization time and complication rates were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS While both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in baseline voiding parameters, short-term analysis demonstrates that VIT provides superior short-term outcomes to standard HPS-PVP in men with prostate volumes >80cc. G-LEP also appears to be more time-efficient, consumes less energy and obtains tissue for pathological evaluation. Further follow-up is required to assess the durability of VIT to PVP vaporization only for large prostate glands. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e877-e878 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kevin Zorn Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Gagan Gautam Chicago, IL More articles by this author Dan Liberman Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Tal Ben-Zvi Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Pierre-Allain Hueber Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Tom Deklaj Chicago, IL 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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 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 ».