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: 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".