A clinical study comparing BIVAP saline vaporization of the prostate with bipolar TURP: Early complications, physiological changes and postoperative follow-up outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compare BIVAP saline vaporization of the prostate with bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: In total, we included 86 patients treated with BIVAP (n = 44) and bipolar TURP (n = 42). The inclusion criteria were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) ≤10 mL/s, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥16, and prostate volume measured with transrectal ultrasound scan between 30 and 80 mL. Serum electrolyte, hemoglobin, and hematocrit levels were determined preoperatively and postoperatively. All patients were evaluated at the postoperative first and third months and the IPSS score, post-void residual urinary volume (PVR), Qmax, and average urinary flow rate (Qave) were compared. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 16.0 program and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Preoperative demographic characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The mean operation time was significantly higher (p = 0.02) and hospitalization time was significantly lower (p = 0.04) in the BIVAP group when compared to the bipolar TURP group. There was no significant difference between 2 groups in terms of preoperative and postoperative serum electrolyte, hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. Postoperative complication rates were similar in the 2 groups. The only exception was the rate of severe dysuria, which was significantly higher in the BIVAP group. No statistical difference was noted between the groups in terms of postoperative follow-up results. CONCLUSION: Bipolar TURP is a safe and highly effective technique which can be used in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction with minimal side effects. BIVAP saline vaporization of the prostate seems to be a potential alternative to bipolar TURP with shorter hospitalization time.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".