Salvage Holmium laser enucleation of prostate to treat recurring benign prostatic hyperplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) technique to remove residual adenoma has not been reported. Salvage HoLEP enables anatomical enucleation of residual adenoma in patients who have previously undergone surgical treatment. We describe not only anatomical insights into the frequent location of adenoma recurrence, but also the feasibility of the salvage HoLEP technique. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a database containing HoLEP video records for 35 patients out of a total of 535 individuals on whom HoLEP was performed by 2 surgeons (SJO & JSP) between July 2008 and June 2011. Group 1 consisted of patients who underwent salvage HoLEP due to recurring adenoma and Group 2 of patients who underwent HoLEP as an initially surgical management to treat benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). We compared the dataset of pre-, intra- and postoperative parameters between Groups 1 and 2. RESULTS: In the analysis of the video records of Group 1 (n = 35), there was significant remnant tissue around the verumontanum and the lateral lobes were also incompletely removed by previous conventional procedures. When we compared pre-, intra- and postoperative parameters between the 2 groups, there were no significant differences, including operation time, duration of hospital stay. However, the duration of the catheterization of Group 1 was shorter than that of Group 2 (1.38 ± 0.55 vs. 1.90 ± 1.81 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Even for cases of residual BPH, salvage HoLEP is a feasible and effective procedure for treating residual adenoma along the anatomical plane.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".