The ex vivo and in vivo Characteristics of New DrillCut<sup>TM</sup> Prostate Morcellator after Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The DrillCutTM morcellator is marketed for its fast and highly efficient removal of prostatic tissue and a higher level of patient safety. However, a paucity of publications has looked into its actual efficacy and safety. The aim of our study was to evaluate its ex vivo and in vivo efficiency and to compare its results with other devices presented in the literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study on patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) from 2017 to 2018 using the Top-Down technique. Enucleated adenomas were morcellated using the DrillCutTM morcellator. We collected both preoperative and operative data. Operative data included the enucleated adenoma weight and operative time. Various morcellator parameters were collected including morcellation time and efficiency. We recorded the encountered complications and device malfunction. Ex vivo characteristics were evaluated in terms of morcellation speed and aspiration power. RESULTS: Sixty consecutive patients with a median age of 72.8 years were included. The enucleated adenoma was retrieved in 12.5 min (4-58). The median resected prostatic weight was 90 g (44-242). The DrillCutTM efficiency was calculated as 6.46 g/min (2.7-15). Only one patient had a simple bladder mucosal injury. Device malfunction was encountered in 4 patients (6.6%) due to blockage of the morcellator blades. The ex vivo aspiration speed was 52 s/L, while the morcellation power was 14 g/2 min. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the DrillCut morcellator was effective and safe in managing our patients post-HoLEP. The DrillCutTM has better ex vivo morcellation power but modest aspiration speed in comparison to other morcellators.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".