Monopolar Transurethral Enucleo-Resection of the Prostate Versus Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Canadian Novel Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To study the functional outcome of patients undergoing transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate (TUERP) vs patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in men with bladder outlet obstruction. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively collected database of two groups of patients. Twenty-four patients underwent TUERP (group 1), and 27 underwent HoLEP (group 2). Preoperative characteristics, intervention parameters, postoperative functional outcomes, uroflowmetry, and complications were collected. Results: Mean prostate size in groups 1 and 2 were 87.2 and 93.5 cc, respectively. The mean duration of surgery was 110 minutes in group 1 and 136 minutes in group 2. In group 1, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) dropped from 4.4 to 1.2 ng/cc after 12 months. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 3.75 at 12 months with a preoperative value of 20.9. With respect to maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), it increased to 21.8 mL/s from a preoperative value of 6.4 mL/s. In group 2, the PSA dropped from 7.6 to 1.3 ng/cc. IPSS dropped from 22.3 to 3.8, Qmax increased from 7.7 to 22.5 mL/s. Hemoglobin, complications, and all studied parameters were not statistically significant between both groups. Conclusion: In this study, TUERP was safe and efficacious in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients with large glands. Modifications can be implemented on the standard transurethral resection of the prostate technique to treat patients with prostate sizes >70 cc.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".