Photoselective laser ablation of the prostate: a review of the current 2015 tissue ablation options.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still considered the gold standard to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) has gained widespread acceptance as an alternative option requiring preoperative patient selection. Four laser systems are currently in use: holmium, thulium, diode and GreenLight. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The goal of this article is to review the physics and the basics behind laser prostatectomies, as well as to present the most current literature concerning the results, advantages, disadvantages and international recommendations for each vaporization procedure. RESULTS: Holmium laser ablation of the prostate (HoLAP) and GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate are an alternative to TURP for small to medium-sized prostates, providing equivalent efficacy and safety. GreenLight is also safe and effective in large-sized prostates and especially beneficial in anti-coagulated individuals compared to TURP. Thulium vaporization of the prostate (ThuVAP) and diode vaporization both require additional randomized trials and long term studies before conclusion is made, despite promising initial results. Diode vaporization provides the best hemostasis overall, but at the cost of increased complication and re-treatment rate, and thus is not recommended except in severely anti-coagulated patients. CONCLUSION: Laser vaporization is a safe and effective alternative to TURP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for carefully selected patients. However, further research is still needed to assess the durability of each technology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".