MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912815699 · doi:10.22374/jeleu.v2i1.26

Thulium Laser Vaporization versus Vapoenucleation (without morcellation) Technique for BPH: Do We Have a Winner?

2019· article· en· W2912815699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Debanga Sarma, Yashasvi Singh, Saumar Jyoti Baruah, Rajeev T.P, Sasanka Kumar Barua, Puskal Kumar Bagchi, Mandeep Phukan, Manash Pratim Kashyap

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endoluminal Endourology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThuliumUrologyProstatectomyProstateInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreHyperplasiaOpen ProstatectomySurgeryLaserLower urinary tract symptomsInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective The thulium laser surgery is a relatively new approach in which a wavelength of approximately 2 μm is emitted in continuous-wave mode, thus enabling the precise incision of tissue by using a wavelength that matches the water absorption peak of 1.92 μm in tissue. However, no published multinational study or other evidence definitively declares the superiority of thulium vaporization (ThuVAP) over thulium vapoenucle-ation (ThuVEP) without morcellator for better management of bothersome benign prostatic hyperplasia. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of vaporization and vapoenucleation (without a morcellator) in thulium laser prostatectomy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods A retrospective analysis of 82 patients who underwent thulium laser prostatectomy between February 2017 and January 2018 with ThuVAP and ThuVEP techniques was done and outcome measures analyzed were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life score (QoL), maximum flow rate (Q max), post-void residual (PVRU), total operating time, laser time and resected tissue weight. Results No significant differences were noted between ThuVAP and ThuVEP in terms of post-operative prostate volume (22.4 vs. 21.7 mL) and post-operative prostate specific antigen (PSA) (2.54 vs. 1.85 ng/mL). Nonetheless, there were differences between the groups in total lasing time (56.5 vs. 44.8 min, p = 0.001) and total operative time (88.5 vs. 71.5 min, p= 0.001). There was also a significant difference in IPSS, QoL score, Q max, and PVRU at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 9 months after surgery. Conclusion ThuVEP provides a superior reduction of prostate volume and better short-term clinical outcomes than ThuVAP in the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Furthermore, ThuVEP results in significantly lower urethral discomfort rates with significant improvement in IPSS as compared to ThuVAP which is maintained over time. The hospital stay and catheter indwelling time are shorter in the ThuVEP group and the complications associated with it appear to be lower than ThuVAP group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endoluminal EndourologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207