2175 GREENLIGHT HPS-120W VS GREENLIGHT XPS-180W LASER VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: A PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE OUTCOMES ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".