Same-day trial of void and discharge following standard vs. MOSES holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: A single-center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: HoLEP (MoLEP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients that underwent HoLEP (100 W) or MoLEP (120 W) with same-day catheter removal three hours postoperatively at our institution from August 2018 to September 2021. Patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Data were compared as means with standard deviation and medians with interquartile range (IQR) or numbers and percentages. Continuous and categorical variables were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-squared test, respectively. Predictors of shorter enucleation time and failed same-day TOV were investigated. RESULTS: Of the 90 patients included, 28 underwent HoLEP while 62 had MoLEP. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the successful TOV (23 [82%] vs. 58 [93.5%], p=0.1) and readmission rate (3 [10.7%] vs. 1 [1.6%], p=0.08); however, the MoLEP group had a significantly shorter mean enucleation time (p<0.001), mean hemostasis time (p<0.001), mean morcellation time (p=0.003), and lower mean energy used (p<0.001). On the logistic regression model, MoLEP (odds ratio [OR] 0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.007-0.19, p<0.001), lower preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p=0.03), and smaller prostate size (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.09, p<0.001) were independent predictors of shorter enucleation time. History of preoperative retention was the only significant factor associated with a failed same-day TOV (p=0.04). There was no difference in intraoperative or postoperative complication rates or postoperative functional outcomes between the two technologies. CONCLUSIONS: technology offered better enucleation efficiency with excellent hemostatic potential. Preoperative retention was the only predictor of failed same-day TOV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".