MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238312516 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.2147

2086 IMPACT OF MEDICAL THERAPY ON TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE (TURP): TWO DECADES OF CHANGE

2010· article· en· W4238312516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason Izard, J. Curtis Nickel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical therapyTransurethral resection of the prostateProstateHyperplasiaUrologySurgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy and New Technology II1 Apr 20102086 IMPACT OF MEDICAL THERAPY ON TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE (TURP): TWO DECADES OF CHANGE Jason Izard and J. Curtis Nickel Jason IzardJason Izard More articles by this author and J. Curtis NickelJ. Curtis Nickel More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.2147AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The introduction of medical therapy for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) may have shifted the indications, patient characteristics and outcomes in men undergoing TURP over the last two decades (1988 to 2008). METHODS All patients who underwent TURP for symptomatic BPH in a geographically defined area at our Institution in 1998 (before general introduction of medical therapy for BPH), 1998 (when medical therapy was becoming an important therapy for BPH), and 2008 (medical therapy was the primary initial therapy for BPH) were reviewed. We assessed total number of TURPs, indications for surgery, patient age, health status, weight of resected tissue, and pre- and post-operative complications. RESULTS There was a 60% decrease in TURPs from 1988 (n = 157) to 1998 with a moderate increase in number in 2008. Failure of medical therapy was not an indication in 1988 but was at least one of the indications for TURP in 36% and 83% in 1998 and 2009 respectively. No significant differences were found in age, co-morbid status or resected prostate weight between the 3 groups. There was a significant rise in patients presenting with acute (AUR) and/or chronic (CUR) (greater than 300 cc residual) urinary retention at the time of their TURP (for AUR 22.9%, 54.&% and 42.9% and for CUR 14.6%, 20.3% and 39.3% in 1988, 1998 and 2008 respectively), but fewer patients presented with hydronephrosis in 2008 (7.1%) compared to 1998 (12.5%) but this was still much higher than in 1988 (1.3%). Post-operative days in hospital decreased over the decades (from 4.1 days in 1988 to 2.7 in 1998 and then to 2.1 days in 2008), however, the number of patients discharged with a catheter (failure to void) increased over 2 decades (from 3.2% to 12.5% to 28.6% respectively). CONCLUSIONS The dramatic decrease in the number of TURPs performed for symptomatic BPH at our Institution since the introduction of medical therapy has now leveled off. However, the proportion of TURP patients presenting with urinary retention and the number being discharged with a catheter after a failed trial of voiding has increased. This would suggest that although the average age and medical co-morbidities of our TURP patients has not dramatically changed, patients currently presenting for TURP appear to have experienced more pre-TURP progression and poorer immediate outcomes over the decades from 1988 to 2008. Could this be a direct result of increasing reliance on medical therapy? Kingston, Canada© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e811 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jason Izard More articles by this author J. Curtis Nickel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207