GreenLight laser prostatectomy: Are outcomes sustainable after a decade of surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Herein, we report our single-center experience with long-term outcomes over a period of 15 years. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2020, a prospectively maintained database for patients undergoing GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was reviewed. Three generations of GreenLight laser were used over this period. Patients with ≥10 years of followup were included. Demographic and perioperative data were collected, including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), peak flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine (PVR), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes. Perioperative and late adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 712 patients with a mean age of 73.9±7.8 years were included in the study, with a median followup of 12.1 years and a mean preoperative prostate size of 72.4±15.3 mL. There were significant reductions in mean IPSS, QoL, and PVR (60.4%, 65%, and 72.6%, respectively; all p<0.001) at the most recent followup compared to baseline values. Likewise, a significant improvement in Qmax (8.2 to 17.7 ml/sec, p<0.001) and a PSA reduction of 64.2% were noted at the most recent followup. The blood transfusion rate was 1.5 %. Transient postoperative dysuria was encountered in 44 (6.2%) patients. Development of bladder neck contracture and urethral stricture were encountered in 18 (2.5%) and 15 (2.1%) patients, respectively. Twenty-four (3.37%) patients required repeat surgery for adenoma regrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term functional outcomes support the durability of the GreenLight laser PVP, with acceptable long-term adverse events after a decade of surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".