Which Anatomic Structures Should Be Preserved During Aquablation Contour Planning to Optimize Ejaculatory Function? A Case-control Study Using Ultrasound Video Recordings to Identify Surgical Predictors of Postoperative Anejaculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify key anatomic structures that should be preserved to decrease postoperative anejaculation after Aquablation. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study design using patient data and operative video logs from Aquablation clinical trials. Cases were sexually active participants with functional baseline ejaculation and postoperative anejaculation. Controls were sexually active participants with functional baseline ejaculation and no postoperative decline in sexual function. Each case was matched to 1 or 2 controls. Video logs from the procedure were scored for: verumontanum cut coverage, penetration of ejaculatory ducts, depth of cut below the verumontanum, angle offset of verumontanum to centerline of protection zone, number of passes, and intraprostatic calcifications. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate univariate odds ratios relating anatomic findings to case/control status. RESULTS: We identified 24 cases and 27 controls. In univariate analysis, predictors of postoperative anejaculation were: penetration of the ejaculatory ducts (odds ratio [OR] 8.6 [95% CI 1.09-67.5], P = .041) and depth below the verumontanum (OR 1.92 [1.1-3.3], P = .015). CONCLUSION: Violation of anatomic structures involved in ejaculation during the Aquablation procedure increases the risk of postoperative anejaculation. More careful attention to these structures during contour planning may further improve ejaculatory function after Aquablation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".