PD45-01 SHORT-TERM POSTOPERATIVE FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES OF REZŪM VS. GREENLIGHT PVP 180W XPS: A PROPENSITY MATCH SCORE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022PD45-01 SHORT-TERM POSTOPERATIVE FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES OF REZŪM VS. GREENLIGHT PVP 180W XPS: A PROPENSITY MATCH SCORE STUDY Iman Sadri, David-Dan Nguyen, Adel Arezki, Naeem Bhojani, Bilal Chughtai, Dean Elterman, and Kevin C. Zorn Iman SadriIman Sadri More articles by this author , David-Dan NguyenDavid-Dan Nguyen More articles by this author , Adel ArezkiAdel Arezki More articles by this author , Naeem BhojaniNaeem Bhojani More articles by this author , Bilal ChughtaiBilal Chughtai More articles by this author , Dean EltermanDean Elterman More articles by this author , and Kevin C. ZornKevin C. Zorn More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002613.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Rezūm steam vapor therapy has recently gained popularity as a new minimally invasive surgical technique for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The currently available literature on Rezūm has been promising, showing good lower urinary tract symptom relief outcomes and favorable sexual outcomes. In this multicenter study, we sought to compare the postoperative functional outcomes of Rezūm against a similar cohort of patients undergoing 180W XPS GreenLight PVP. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Global GreenLight Group database which includes 8 high-volume, experienced surgeons, from a total of 7 international centers, as well as data from the Canadian Rezūm Database. Patients with previous BPH surgery were excluded. Six-month changes in IPSS, Qmax, and post-void residual (PVR) were compared between Greenlight and Rezum using regression models with inverse propensity treatment weighting adjusting for age and prostate size. RESULTS: The Greenlight PVP and Rezūm groups have significant baseline differences in age and Qmax. At 6-month follow-up, Rezūm demonstrated a PVR of 105ml compared to 30ml (p<0.01) and an IPSS score of 9.5 compared to 6.6 (p<0.01) in the Greenlight group. Most notably, compared to Rezūm, regression models demonstrate that Greenlight PVP boasts statistically significant advantages in IPSS change from baseline [4.4 95%CI: 3.0-5.9, p<0.01], Qmax change from baseline [9.3ml/s 95%CI: 5.8-12.7, p<0.01], and PVR decrease from baseline [157ml 95%CI: 97-219, p<0.01] at 6-month follow up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rezūm and Greenlight both demonstrated significant IPSS LUTS improvements as well as postoperative functional parameters when compared to baseline. The significant differences in postoperative outcomes between the observed technologies relates to the degree of tissue ablation with the trade off of reduced side effects, sexual dysfunction, procedure time, length of stay and cost. Such details should be discussed and evaluated during patient consultation and BPH procedure counselling. Source of Funding: none © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e782 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Iman Sadri More articles by this author David-Dan Nguyen More articles by this author Adel Arezki More articles by this author Naeem Bhojani More articles by this author Bilal Chughtai More articles by this author Dean Elterman More articles by this author Kevin C. Zorn More articles by this author Expand All 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".