Safety and clinical outcomes of GreenLight laser prostatectomy in octogenarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of age on perioperative morbidity and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing GreenLight laser prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from individuals who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy from May 2018 to July 2022. Patient demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including indications for the procedure and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores. All patients had postoperative followup visits at one, three, six, and 12 months. Our evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ), quality of life (QoL) assessment, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), and catheter-free status. RESULTS: One-hundred-sixty-eight males who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy were included. The non-octogenarian group consisted of 111 patients and the octogenarian group comprised 57 individuals. Based on ASA scores, most octogenarians were deemed high-risk (ASA III: 91.2%), while over half of non-octogenarians were lower-risk (ASA II: 53.2%) (p<0.001). Intraoperative parameters, including operative time, vaporization time, lasing time, and energy did not differ significantly between groups. There was no difference in the proportion of intraoperative complications between non-octogenarians and octogenarians (0.9% vs. 3.5%). Postoperative complications were not statistically significant between the two groups (p=0.608). There was also no observed difference in the proportion of patients requiring readmission (p=0.226) or retreatment (p=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight laser prostatectomy is a safe and effective treatment for BPH regardless of age. It provides similar surgical and functional outcomes as younger men while maintaining the QoL of octogenarians.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".