Electrical Burn of Urethra as Cause of Stricture After Transurethral Resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: One of the most common complications of transurethral resection is urethral stricture. The exact etiology is still controversial. Postulated pathophysiology ranges from mechanical trauma to the urethra during the resection to inflammatory reaction secondary to local anesthesia. We propose electrical burn to the urethra as a contributory factor in some cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electrical events during transurethral resection were simulated in vitro. The distribution of current was measured at the loop/rollerball and in the outer metal sheath. Both an intact loop/rollerball and loop/rollerball with faulty insulation were tested. Various power outputs simulating coagulation, cutting, and vaporization were used. Data were recorded both in settings where the outer metal sheath was and was not smeared with nonconductive lubricating gel. RESULTS: Approximately 20% of the total current output was shunted to the metal sheath when an intact loop/rollerball was used. One hundred percent of the current was short-circuited to the sheath when a loop/rollerball with faulty insulation was retracted into the sheath. Little current was detectable in the nonconductive lubricating gel. We then calculated the length of time required, in various settings, to reach tissue temperature of 45 degrees C, when protein denaturation starts. The higher the power output and the smaller the contacting surface area, the more likely it is for urethral burns to occur. CONCLUSION: Our in vitro experiment showed that urethral burns secondary to stray current in the resectoscope sheath are unlikely when an intact loop is used. However, urethral burns can occur when a loop/rollerball with faulty insulation is used, especially in combination with nonconductive gel that is dispersed unevenly within the urethra.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".