Simultaneous transurethral resection of the prostate and cystolithotripsy: A urological dilemma examined
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists over whether transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in men with bladder stones prevents recurrence of stone formation and facilitates stone discharge. We sought to evaluate whether TURP in patients who underwent cystolithotripsy led to a lower recurrence of bladder stones for which a re-cystolithotripsy was necessary. METHODS: Patients (n=127) who underwent transurethral cystolithotripsy with (n=38) or without simultaneous TURP (n=89) between January 2009 and December 2013 were retrospectively included in five centers in the Netherlands. Median followup was 48 months. The primary endpoint was to compare the relative risk between both groups for re-cystolithotripsy due to recurrent bladder stones. Secondary outcomes were the relative risk of urinary retention, the need for a (re-)TURP and the average time until recurrence. RESULTS: Patients who underwent a cystolithotripsy with a simultaneous TURP had a lower need for re-cystolithotripsy, resulting in a risk reduction of 72%. (relative risk [RR] 0.28 [0.07-1.13], p=0.06, number needed to treat [NNT]=7). The length of in hospital stay (3.4 vs. 1.6 days, p=0.04) and operative time (58 vs. 33 minutes, p<0.01) was longer when a TURP was performed. There was no significant difference in complication rate, occurrence of urinary retention, re-TURP, and re-admission. Eighty-one percent of patients who did not undergo a TURP remained free of bladder stone recurrence. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, essential data concerning prostate volume and micturition analysis was lacking. CONCLUSIONS: A simultaneous TURP in patients who underwent a cystolithotripsy showed a trend towards a protective effect on the need for re-cystolithotripsy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".