Feasibility assessment of catheter-free water vapor thermal therapy for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate safety and feasibility of performing water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT; Rezum, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) without postoperative catheterization among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: This is a prospective, single arm, unblinded pilot study of 20 consecutive male patients ages 40-80 who underwent WVTT at a single academic institution. All patients underwent 1 injection per lobe at the point of maximal obstruction based on visualization. Primary outcome was evaluation of voiding parameters, symptom scores, and need for catheterization at 3 day, 1, 3, and 6 month follow up compared to baseline visit 30 days prior to surgery. RESULTS: Mean age was 65 years (range 55-75). Mean prostate volume and PVR were 43 cc (range 30-68) and 89 cc, with 30% (n = 6) having median lobes. Patients received 2-3 treatments based on presence of bilobar versus trilobar hyperplasia. One patient (55 cc prostate, no median lobe) required catheterization for acute urinary retention on postoperative day 2. No patients required antibiotics for urinary tract infection or inpatient readmission within 30 days. Qmax significantly increased from 6 mL/s to 8, 13, 12, and 14 at 3 days, 1, 3, and 6 months (p < 0.05). IPSS decreased from 17 preoperatively to 10, 6, 7, and 8 (p < 0.05). No significant differences were noted in PVR, IIEF, MSHQ-EjD, or SF-12. CONCLUSIONS: In well-selected men, catheter-free WVTT is feasible and improved voiding parameters and symptom scores. No changes in sexual function, infectious complications, or readmission were noted. Only 1 patient (5%) required postoperative catheterization within 30 days.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".