Mechanisms of Delayed Lower Urinary Tract Stone Formation after Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Materials and methods: We analysed Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate (HOLEP) database consisting of 1300 patients who presented more than 18 months after undergoing the procedure with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSvoiding lower urinary tract symptoms, dysuria, haematuria, recurrent urinary tract infections-UTIs) secondary to delayed lower urinary tract stone formation. Information was gathered from the case notes, imaging modalities, operation notes and pathology reports. Results: Three patients were identified who presented with delayed lower urinary tract stone formation 18 months after undergoing HOLEP. Case 1: A 68-year-old presented with a 4-cm mobile bladder stone on a retained prostatic fragment 29 months after HOLEP. Case 2: A 74-year-old presented with 2.5 cm bulbar urethral stone 18 months after HOLEP. Case 3: A 77-year-old presented with dystrophic calcification of the entire prostatic fossa 60 months after HOLEP. Conclusion: Delayed lower urinary tract stone presentation is unusual after HOLEP. Recurrent urethral pain, recurrent UTI, gross haematuria and voiding lower urinary tract symptoms in the presence of a lower urinary tract stone (bladder, prostate and urethra) with a radiolucent centre on a background of HOLEP should raise the suspicion that this may represent calcification on a prostatic tissue fragment or dystrophic calcification of the residual prostate/prostatic fossa. Careful morcellation, inspection of the prostatic fossa on withdrawing the morcellator for large residual prostate fragments still attached to the prostatic bed/bladder neck or simply stuck to the fossa (usually in a clot) will reduce the risk of retainment of such a significant prostatic fragment that can potentially cause complications in the future.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".