Advances in HoLEP technology and technique – Current state of play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Until recently, Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) utilisation has been limited despite its perceived benefits over alternative surgical and minimally invasive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treatments. Objective: The purpose of this review is to highlight our experience with recent advances in laser and morcellator technologies that have made it easier for urologists to consistently offer HoLEP as a safe, efficient, and effective in an ambulatory (day surgery) setting. Methods: Our narrative review focused on contemporary studies published within the last five years. Conclusions: Technological advances coupled with increasing availability of training opportunities has and will continue to improve patients’ accessibility to the gold standard in BPH surgical treatment. Furthermore, we will describe refinements in laser enucleation techniques that have improved procedural efficiencies, rates of temporary post-operative urinary incontinence, and preservation of sexual function. The effects of technical modifications on functional and durability outcomes are to be seen in further prospective studies. Level of Evidence: Level 7 (Expert Opinion)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".