“Urethral-Sparing” Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Critical Appraisal of the Safety of the Technique Based on the Histologic Characteristics of the Prostatic Urethra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prostatic urethra (PU) is conventionally resected during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP). Recent studies demonstrated the feasibility of the extended PU preservation (EPUP). AIMS: To describe the histologic features of the PU. METHODS: The PU was evaluated using cystoprostatectomy and RALP specimens. Cases of PU infiltration by prostate cancer or distortion by benign hyperplastic nodules were excluded. The thickness of the chorion and distance between the urothelium and prostate glands were measured. Prostate-specific antigen expression in the PU epithelium was evaluated with immunohistochemistry. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Six specimens of PU were examined. Histologically, the following layers of the PU were observed: (1) urothelium with basal membrane, (2) chorion, and (3) prostatic peri-urethral fibromuscular tissue. The chorion measures between 0.2 and 0.4 mm. There is not a distinct urethral muscle layer, but rather muscular fibers that originate near the prostatic stroma and are distributed around the PU. This muscular tissue appears to be mainly represented in the basal and apical urethra, but not in the middle urethra. The mean distance between the chorion and prostatic glands is 1.74 mm, with significant differences between base of the prostate, middle urethral portion, and apex (2.5 vs. 1.49 vs. 1.23 mm, respectively). PSA-expressing cells are abundant in the PU epithelium, coexisting with urothelial cells. CONCLUSIONS: The exiguity of thickness of the PU chorion, short distance from glandular tissue, and coexistence of PSA-expressing cells in the epithelium raise important concerns about the oncologic safety of EPUP.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".