Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in nonagenarians and octogenarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a well-established technique for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). With the growing aging population, a considerable percentage of octogenarians (80-90 years old) and nonagenarians (>90 years old) require surgical management for BPH. We aimed to assess the outcomes of HoLEP in those age groups. METHODS: We reviewed a maintained database for HoLEP patients in a tertiary center. Patients were assigned to two groups: above (group A) and below (group B) 80 years old. Perioperative outcome and postoperative followup data were compared between both groups. RESULTS: The study included 1090 patients, 201 and 889 in groups A and B, respectively. Median age was 83 and 70 years in groups A and B, respectively. Group A showed longer operative time, longer catheterization time, and higher 30-day emergency room visits and readmission rates. Hemoglobin drop was comparable, although associated with higher rate of blood transfusion in group A. Overall, 30-day postoperative complications were higher in group A (20.8% vs. 9.3%, p=0.008), although the majority of complications in both groups were grade I and II. The rate of complications over Clavien-Dindo grade II were statistically comparable (3.4% vs. 1.79%, p=0.133). Followup at six weeks, three months, and one year showed comparable functional outcomes in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP is a safe and effective option in the geriatric population of octogenarians and even nonagenarians. HoLEP is associated with higher overall complication rate in older age groups; however, most complications were minor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".