Retroperitoneal hematoma following radical orchiectomy: Two cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of testicular cancer is dependent on the stage of disease at presentation. Stage 1 testicular cancer is treated with radical orchiectomy, followed by active surveillance, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy. Occasionally, unusual and unexpected postoperative changes can be seen on computed tomography (CT), and may raise concern for metastatic disease. Here, we present two cases of testicular cancer patients who developed retroperitoneal hematomas post-radical orchiectomy, one as a classical clinical presentation, and the other as an atypical radiological entity only. The first is a case of a 38-year-old male with a non-seminoma testicular cancer, who developed severe flank pain, hemodynamic instability, and progressive anemia from a retroperitoneal hematoma in the immediate (<24 hours) postoperative period, requiring urgent surgical evacuation. The second is a case of a 33-year-old male with a testicular seminoma who had a large, suspicious retroperitoneal mass on a staging CT scan concerning for metastatic disease, which was later diagnosed as a retroperitoneal hematoma. These cases reveal the clinical variability with which a retroperitoneal hematoma post-radical orchiectomy may present. In addition, the second case demonstrates the importance of recognizing radiological postoperative changes and ensuring that these findings are not mistaken for and treated as metastatic disease.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".