Photoselective vaporization of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In recent years, laser treatments have re-emerged as options for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This paper reviews the safety, efficacy, effectiveness and economics of photoselective vapourization of the prostate (PVP), compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify 14 studies comparing 80 W PVP and TURP. We then reviewed and pooled these studies. RESULTS: We identified 12 adverse events or complications; rates were similar in both groups. No PVP patient required a blood transfusion; 5%-11% of TURP patients did. PVP patients had a significantly lower likelihood of clot retention. Collectively, the 14 studies led to the conclusion that PVP is a safe procedure. PVP is favourable to TURP regarding length of hospitalization and catheterization times. There were no meaningful differences in operation times, reoperation rates, peak flow rates, postresidual volumes or quality of life scores. Sexual function and prostate specific antigen value changes were similar. Four economic evaluations of PVP and TURP (from Canada, Switzerland, Australia and the United States) concluded that PVP is less costly per case than TURP. Cost differences are attributable to disposables, capital equipment and hospitalization. Based on our analysis of limited Canadian data, the cost of PVP is estimated to be about one-half that of TURP, even after accounting for start-up costs. CONCLUSION: The 80 W PVP laser appears to be a viable treatment for BPH. With the recent regulatory approval of the 120 W High Performance System (HPS), an additional option has become available. Therefore, it is anticipated that PVP will soon be considered part of a physician's repertoire for managing BPH.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".