Simultaneous Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate and Upper-Tract Endourologic Stone Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The holmium laser is a versatile urologic tool. Its unique cutting and coagulating properties allow multiple procedures, such as stone fragmentation and laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), to be performed with a single set-up. This paper reviews our experience with simultaneous HoLEP and endourologic upper-tract stone procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all 11 patients (12 renal units) treated with the combined approach of HoLEP and an upper-tract endourologic procedure for stone disease. All patients initially underwent HoLEP, followed immediately by percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)(N=2), ureteroscopy (URS)(N=8), or both (N=1). The mean stone diameter was 34.7 mm for PCNL and 6.7 mm for URS. Outcome data and complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean preoperative and postoperative American Urological Association Symptom Scores were 21.8 and 6.3, respectively. The mean prostatic specimen weight was 118 g (range 21-376 g), and the mean hospital stay was 1.4 days. For 10 patients with available prostatic specific antigen (PSA) data, the mean preoperative and postoperative values were 6.2 and 0.9 ng/mL, respectively. All patients were catheter free at discharge. All three PCNL patients were rendered stone free; all four URS patients who had radiographic follow-up were stone free. There were no short- or long-term complications, and no transfusions were necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous HoLEP and laser lithotripsy are feasible, emphasizing the unique capabilities of the holmium laser. The hemostasis offered by HoLEP allows safe removal of prostatic tissue and urinary calculi, obviating multiple procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".