Transperineal Laser Ablation for Benign Prostatic Enlargement: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Pilot Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transperineal laser ablation (TPLA) of the prostate is a new minimally invasive treatment option in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TPLA in the management of BPE. The primary outcomes were the improvement in urodynamic parameters (maximum urinary flow (Qmax) and postvoiding residue (PVR)) and LUTS relief, assessed using the IPSS questionnaire. The secondary outcomes were the preservation of sexual and ejaculatory functions, assessed with the IEEF-5 and MSHQ-EjD questionnaires, respectively, and rates of postoperative complications. We reviewed the literature for prospective or retrospective studies evaluating the use of TPLA in the treatment of BPE. A comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for English language articles published between January 2000 and June 2022. Pooled analysis of the included studies with available follow-up data for the outcomes of interest was additionally performed. After screening 49 records, six full-text manuscripts were identified, including two retrospective and four prospective non-comparative studies. Overall, 297 patients were included. All the studies independently reported a statistically significant improvement, from baseline, in Qmax, PVR, and IPSS score at each timepoint. Three studies additionally demonstrated that TPLA did not affect sexual function, reporting no change in the IEEF-5 score, and a statistically significant improvement in MSHQ-EjD score at each timepoint. Low rates of complications were recorded in all the included studies. Pooled analysis showed a clinically meaningful improvement in both micturition and sexual outcomes mean values at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, compared with baseline. Transperineal laser ablation of the prostate for the treatment of BPE showed interesting results in pilot studies. However, higher level and comparative studies are needed to confirm its efficacy in relieving obstructive symptoms and preserving sexual function.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".