MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396795986 · doi:10.1097/ju9.0000000000000139

Complex Buccal Graft Urethroplasty Combined With HoLEP in the Setting of Concomitant Urethral Stricture Disease and Severe Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Case Report

2024· article· en· W4396795986 on OpenAlexaff
Laurianne Rita Garabed, Stephanie Wang, Malek Meskawi, Naeem Bhojani, Daniel Liberman

Bibliographic record

VenueJU Open Plus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrethroplastyMedicineUrethral strictureConcomitantSurgeryProstateBuccal administrationAnastomosisUrologyUrethraInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Urethral strictures and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are 2 common causes of urinary obstruction and urinary emptying symptoms. While urethroplasty and endoscopic management of BPH have been extensively discussed in the literature when performed on their own, a case of simultaneous urethroplasty and endoscopic management of BPH has not been previously described in the literature. Case Description: We present the case of a 75-year-old man with significant BPH and concomitant bulbar obliterative urethral stricture. After discussion of treatment options with the patient, we elected to perform both holmium LASER enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) of a 200cc prostate and buccal graft urethroplasty during the same surgery. The HoLEP was performed through a dorsal urethrotomy in anticipation of urethroplasty. Nontransecting anastomotic repair was then combined with the buccal graft urethroplasty. The patient did not have any acute postoperative complications and had no recurrence. He reported improvements in outcome questionnaire scores and uroflow parameters at the 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: This case presentation is the first to report on simultaneous complex urethroplasty and endoscopic management of BPH, specifically HoLEP. It shows that this approach can lead to positive urinary outcomes without added complications and with lasting outcomes, thereby allowing the use of a combined surgical approach.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJU Open PlusSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207