Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objective:The transurethral PVP has been proven to be a safe and effective procedure for treating BPH.In this video we describe a new PVP technique, the transurethral laser enucleation of the prostate (TLEP).Our objective was to demonstrate the technique, essentially a hybrid between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and TURP, and assess long-term safety and efficacy of the procedure in patients with 2 years of follow-up. Materials and Methods:A 532-nm laser PVP using the TLEP method was performed on 276 evaluable patients between May 2006 and July 2008.Preoperative data were collected including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), PSA, and prostate volume.All patients also underwent urodynamic testing prior to the procedure.Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months.At each visit, patients provided a uroflow, PVR, and IPSS.Prostate-specific antigen was measured at 12 and 24 months.Results: Mean patient age was 70.33 (range 38-92) years.At baseline mean IPSS was 17.93 (1-35), mean PSA was 4.48 (0.01-43.5) ng/dL.Mean Qmax was 8.8 (0.9-25) mL/s.And mean PVR was 136.01 (0-838) mL.Mean ASA score was 2.21 (range 1 6).Preoperative mean prostate volume was 90.97 (18.3-288) g.Mean laser time was 62.75 (2-302) minutes.The complication rate for the procedure was very low.Following the procedure 5 patients went into retention, 1 developed urosepsis and 1 patient had bleeding that necessitated a second-look procedure.Not a single patient required blood transfusion.After 2 years, mean improvement in IPSS was 64.25% and in mean Qmax was by 74.46%. Conclusion:The new TLEP technique of laser PVP is a safe and effective procedure for BPH treatment with durable outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.883 | 0.608 |
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".