Do Bowel Disorders Affect Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate Outcomes? A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To review outcomes for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who undergo holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) for bothersome urinary symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who had undergone HoLEP by a single surgeon between January 2021 and August 2023. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics were compared between patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of IBS or IBD and those without, using Chi-square and paired T -tests as appropriate. Results: Out of 918 men, 24 (2.6%) had a diagnosis of IBS, and 36 (3.9%) had a diagnosis of IBD. There were no differences in age, BMI, preoperative American Urological Association symptoms score (AUASS), preoperative Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index (MISI) score, and history of urinary retention or incontinence. The IBS + IBD cohort had smaller prostates (100.9 vs 124.2 mL, p = 0.01) and shorter procedure times (57.0 vs 66.5 min, p = 0.02) than controls. IBS patients were more likely to require anticholinergic therapy at a 3-month follow-up (31% vs 13%, p = 0.03) and had more postoperative encounters within 90 days of HoLEP (3.7 vs 2.6, p = 0.01). There were no differences regarding changes in AUASS and MISI scores, same-day trial of void and same-day discharge rates, or complication rates. Conclusion: IBS patients who underwent HoLEP had more symptomatic postoperative courses requiring higher rates of anticholinergic medication use and more provider interactions compared to men without IBS, despite similar AUASS and MISI scores. These trends were not observed in patients with IBD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".