State-of-the-art in minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), often caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), significantly affects quality of life in aging men. While transurethral resection of the prostate remains a standard surgical treatment, its invasiveness and associated side effects have led to the development of minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) as alternatives. This narrative review summarizes current evidence on established and emerging MIST options, including Rezum, iTind, UroLift, CoreTherm, TPLA (transperineal laser ablation), Optilume BPH, and new stent-based, first-line interventional therapies (FITs), such as Zenflow Spring, Butterfly, ProVee System, Urocross, and FloStent. These therapies aim to relieve lower urinary tract symptoms with fewer complications, reduced recovery time, and better preservation of sexual function. Each technique varies in mechanism-thermal, mechanical, or pharmacological-and is suited to specific prostate anatomies and patient profiles. Clinical data support their efficacy in improving International Prostate Symptom Score, peak urinary flow rate, and quality of life scores, with durability ranging from one to five years depending on the modality. Adverse events are generally mild and transient, while rates of ejaculatory and erectile dysfunction remain low across most interventions. FITs offer potential for temporary or long-term decompression with minimal procedural requirements. Overall, MIST broaden the therapeutic landscape for men with symptomatic BPO, particularly those who are unfit or unwilling to undergo conventional surgery. As the field evolves, these interventions contribute to a more personalized, function-preserving approach in BPH management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".