Safety, Perioperative, and Early Functional Outcomes of Vapor Incision Technique Using the GreenLight XPS 180 W System: Direct Comparison with Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare perioperative parameters, safety, and short-term functional outcomes between GreenLight 180 W-XPS photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) and vapor incision technique (VIT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 956 men were treated at five high-volume centers in Canada and the United States between 2000 and 2014 for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Perioperative parameters, complications, and early functional outcomes were retrospectively compared. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences between treatment groups. Subgroup stratified comparative analysis was performed according to preoperative prostate volume 80 cc or less vs greater than 80 cc on transrectal ultrasound (259 and 185 patients, respectively). RESULTS: VIT allowed greater energy delivery and energy density, but operative time and laser time were longer with greater use of MoXy fibers when compared with PVP (all p < 0.05). Improvements in outcomes at 6 months, including International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life score, and uroflowmetry parameters, were significantly greater after VIT when compared with baseline. VIT was associated with significantly greater 6-month prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction (63% vs 50%, p = 0.01). No differences in intraoperative complications were observed between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: VIT is safe and efficacious, providing greater improvements in functional outcomes and PSA reduction at 6 months in comparison with PVP. These results reflect the larger amount of adenoma removed. Yet, it is associated with longer operative time and greater use of MoXy fibers. Long-term follow-up is needed to accurately assess functional outcomes and retreatment rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".