MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate can be taught: the first learning experience

2002· article· en· W2141022095 on OpenAlexaff
Assaad El‐Hakim, M. Elhilali

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnucleationProstateUrologyInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreTransrectal ultrasonographySurgeryLower urinary tract symptomsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To present the initial experience of a senior urology resident with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and to address the difficulties encountered while learning this technique, describing the detailed operative technique and pitfalls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July and August 2001, 27 patients were treated using HoLEP administered by one senior urology resident (A.H.) under the supervision of an experienced urologist (M.M.E.). Patients were assessed before and 1 month after HoLEP by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the associated quality-of-life (QoL) score, and measurements of maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and postvoid residual urine (PVR) volume. The prostate volume was measured before HoLEP using transrectal ultrasonography. The 27 patients were compared retrospectively with 118 who underwent HoLEP by the supervising urologist. Each of the 27 procedures was taped and reviewed. RESULTS: The mean (range) prostate size was 54.8 (21-122) mL (A.H.) and 61.7 (20.5-172) mL (M.M.E.). The mean operative duration was 98 (50-175) min and the mean enucleation time 68 (29-108) min. The improvements in IPSS, QoL score, Qmax and PVR were highly significant (P < 0.001), with mean values before and after HoLEP of 16.8 and 8.2, 3.1 and 1.4, 7.7 and 20.8 mL/s, and 232 and 41.3 mL, respectively. Of the 27 patients, 23 (85%) were catheter-free on the first day after HoLEP; the mean hospital stay was 1.8 days. All these results were comparable with the results of 118 patients treated by M.M.E. The two most difficult technical steps identified were the initial apical enucleation and the incision of the remaining antero-apical mucosal attachment of the lateral lobes. The operator became adept with the HoLEP technique after a mean of 20 patients. CONCLUSION: HoLEP can be learnt but requires longer training than standard transurethral resection. Extensive experience with transurethral surgery and the supervision of an experienced urologist are prerequisites for success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations209
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207