Geriatric Assessment Can Predict Outcomes of Endoscopic Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Elderly Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ojectives: Surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in elderly patients is associated with higher morbidity and mortality rate. This raises the question of benefice and risk balance. We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the results of endoscopic surgery for BPH in elderly patients, according to geriatric assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included prospectively 60 patients older than 75 years, with an indwelling catheter for acute or chronic retention, who were candidates to endoscopic surgery for BPH. Patients underwent the brief geriatric assessment (BGA) and the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to classify them into three groups: "vigorous," "vulnerable," and "sick." Success was defined by the bladder catheter withdrawal after surgery. RESULTS: After geriatric assessment, 33 patients were classified in the "vigorous" group (55%), 25 in the "vulnerable" group (42%), and 2 in the "sick" group (3%). The success rate immediately after surgery was 85% and 41% in the "vigorous patient" group and the "vulnerable and sick" patient group, respectively (p < 0.05). The success rate at 3 months after surgery was 94% and 55% (p < 0.05). The morbidity was higher for the "vulnerable and sick" group (44%) compared with the "vigorous" group (15%) (p < 0.05). The BGA also allowed predicting a higher risk of failure in patients with a score ≥3 immediately after surgery (odds ratio 5.9, confidence interval [95% CI] 1.61, 29.9) and 3 months after surgery (odds ratio 6.9, 95% CI 1.31, 70.8). CONCLUSION: Geriatric assessment can predict the outcome of endoscopic surgery for BPH for patients in retention older than 75 years. "Vulnerable and sick" patients had a higher risk to keep their indwelling catheter after the surgery compared with "vigorous" patients. The complication rate is also higher. The BGA can although predict a poor result of surgery when its score is equal or above 3/6.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".