Outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in men with a history of prostatitis: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prostatitis can be challenging to treat. In refractory cases, prostatitis can be treated surgically with transurethral resection. Objectives: To examine the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) as treatment in patients with prostatitis. Design and methods: Patients who underwent HoLEP at a single center between January 2021 and August 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were collected and analyzed. Patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of prostatitis were identified and contacted postoperatively to evaluate for recurrent symptoms. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Results: We identified 918 patients, of whom 26 (2.8%) had a diagnosis of prostatitis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without prostatitis. Patients with prostatitis were less likely to have a history of a neurologic disorder ( p = 0.035), less likely to be catheter-dependent ( p = 0.005), and less likely to have a preoperative positive urine culture ( p = 0.040). There were no significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative parameters between the two groups. There were 23/26 (88.5%) patients with follow-up. There were no episodes of recurrent prostatitis and one episode of UTI after surgery, with a mean follow-up of 19.39 months (range: 7.45–30.19, SD: 7.38). Conclusion: Prostatitis patients undergoing HoLEP had comparable safety and efficacy profiles to those who did not have prostatitis. On follow-up, 100% of patients with prostatitis did not experience recurrent prostatitis, suggesting that HoLEP may have a role in the management of prostatitis in the presence of benign prostatic enlargement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".