24‐month durability after crossover to the prostatic urethral lift from randomised, blinded sham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the 24‐month effectiveness of the prostatic urethral lift ( PUL ) procedure in men with lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia ( BPH ) assessed through a crossover study. Patients and Methods In all, 53 patients underwent a sham procedure as part of the blinded, randomised L.I.F.T. (Luminal Improvement Following prostatic Tissue approximation for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH ) study at 19 centres and elected to enrol in this crossover study. The crossover procedure involved placement of permanent implants (UroLift ® system) into the prostatic lateral lobes. Patients were followed for 3 months after the sham procedure and then for 24 months after crossover to PUL , with assessments of urinary symptom relief, quality of life (QoL), urinary flow rate, sexual function, and adverse events. Results At 24 months after crossover to PUL , the International Prostate Symptom Score ( IPSS ), QoL, BPH Impact Index, and maximum urinary flow rate improved 36%, 40%, 54%, and 77% from baseline, respectively. Each IPSS parameter on average improved significantly from baseline ( P < 0.005) and remained stable throughout follow‐up. Symptom response after the sham procedure indicated initial improvement at 1 month with significant decay by 3 months. Adverse events were typically mild to moderate and patients returned rapidly to normal activity. Four patients (8%) required intervention with transurethral resection of the prostate and one patient required additional PUL implants within the 24‐month period. There were no reported instances of de novo sustained erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction. Conclusions The PUL procedure is associated with rapid symptom relief, increased urinary flow rate and QoL improvement that remain stable over 24 months. Morbidity is low and sexual function is preserved.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".