Influence of Postoperative Bladder Washout on the Heart Rate: Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic urological surgery is a marginal invasive tool. However, sympathetic activity could be created during the postoperative sequences due to a bladder washout by means of a dynamic bladder filling. Methods: We studied ( cohort study) the preoperative and postoperative response of a patient’s heart rate during the dynamic bladder washout using Holter’s monitor. Results: A total of 15 consecutive male patients aged from 65 to 96 years were included. There was a significant difference in the average heart rate (with P = 0.0053) (69.61 ± 8.83) before and (73.58 ± 11.14) during the process. There was no significant difference in the average low frequency (LF) (P = 0.217706) (349.30 ± 446.08) before and (304.54 ± 356.53) during the washout. There was no significant difference in the average high frequency (HF) (parasympathetic activity) (P = 0.116) (323.77 ± 471.92) before and (273.69 ± 413.19) during the washout. The average before the LF/HF washout is 2.97 ± 3.50 and the average during the LF/HF washout is 3.91 ± 4.16. It showed limited significance (P = 0.054). Discussion: The only significant result is that the bladder washout increases the heart rate by boosting the orthosympathetic activity. It is being studied that the sensation of the bladder filling is transmitted via the sympathetic hypogastric nerve (orthosympathetic activity). Nevertheless, it might be necessary to take a larger population sample with more homogeneous inclusion criteria. Conclusion: We conclude that the p ostoperative bladder washout after transurethral resection of the prostate and bladder cancer significantly increases the heart rate. J Curr Surg. 2014;4(3):91-94 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs228w
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".