MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390106823 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8556

Efficacy of GreenLight laser prostatectomy in urinary retention

2023· article· en· W4390106823 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anastasia MacDonald, Moustafa Fathy, Parsa Nikoufar, Amr Hodhod, Ruba Abdul Hadi, Saud Alhelal, Husain Alaradi, Ahmed S. Zakaria, Walid Shahrour, Hazem Elmansy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrologyUrinary retentionProstatectomyLower urinary tract symptomsInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreDemographicsUrinary systemProstateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of GreenLight laser prostatectomy for the management of acute urinary retention (AUR) and chronic urinary retention (CUR) and to determine outcomes compared to patients without preoperative urinary retention (UR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from individuals who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy at our institution from May 2018 to July 2022. Patient demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including indications for the procedure, median urinary volume drained, or median postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) before catheterization or GreenLight laser prostatectomy. CUR was defined as PVR >300 mL in males able to void and initial catheter drainage >1000 mL in males unable to void in the absence of pain. All patients had postoperative followup visits at one, three, six, and 12 months. Our evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) assessment, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), PVR, and catheter-free status. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight males who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy were included in our study. The UR group consisted of 88 patients (50 AUR and 38 CUR), and the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) group was comprised of 80 individuals. There were no statistically significant differences between the AUR and CUR subgroups regarding demographics. The UR group had a significantly higher age and a significantly higher postoperative catheterization time compared to the LUTS cohort. The CUR subgroup had a significantly higher PVR at one, three, and six months compared to the AUR subgroup, although other outcome measures were similar between the two cohorts. During three- and six-month followup visits, the UR group had a significantly higher PVR than the LUTS cohort. At 12 months postoperative, the LUTS group had a higher catheter-free rate than the UR group (p=0.001). The successful first trial of void (TOV) rate for the UR and LUTS groups were 83% and 80%, respectively. At 12-month followup, the catheter-free rate for the UR and LUTS cohorts was 87.5% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight laser prostatectomy is an effective and durable treatment for UR, with a high catheter-free rate and comparable outcomes when performed to manage LUTS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→