Is Group and Saving Before the Modern Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Still Necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Group and save (G&S) sampling is commonplace for patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) due to the historically high risk of bleeding. However, modern adjustments to the procedure, including the advent of bipolar TURP in saline, have significantly reduced this risk. This study assessed whether routinely performing G&Ss before the modern TURP is still appropriate. Materials and Methods: This study was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent a TURP from January 2009 until December 2019 in one centre. A total of 687 patients were identified during this period. In addition, data was collected on G&S samples, blood products, and postoperative complications such as clot retention or if patients required a blood transfusion. Results: All patients had G&S samples taken before their operation. Only six (0.87%) patients required a blood transfusion. Half were transfused intra-operatively and half post-operatively. Remarkably, none of the transfused patients were below the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold to transfuse of <70g/L(8). Six patients were also noted to develop clot retention following the catheter removal. Discussion and Conclusion: This study has determined that patients undergoing a TURP rarely require blood transfusions. We propose that the practice of routinely taking G&S samples before this procedure should be reviewed. This would give a financial benefit and relieve patients of the unnecessary test. We would recommend thorough optimisation of patients before surgery, including review of anticoagulation and correction of any preoperative anaemia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".