Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

Machine learning models to predict postoperative incontinence after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: An EAU-Endourology study

Abstract

Background

Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) have demonstrated powerful functionality in the healthcare setting thus far. We aimed to construct an AI model to predict postoperative incontinence after enucleation surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods

Data were taken from two BPH registries and split into training and validation datasets. The following characteristics were used as predictors of incontinence: age, prostate volume, preoperative IPSS, QoL score, Qmax and post-void residual; presence of preoperative indwelling catheter, early apical release (EAR), enucleation type (2-lobe, 3-lobe, or en-bloc), and laser energy type. Six types of ML models were constructed using the training dataset and applied to the validation dataset to assess their accuracy.

Results

3828 patients from both databases were analyzed. Median age was 68, median prostate volume was 85.5 cc. 5.4% had a preoperative indwelling catheter. The commonest enucleation type was 2-lobe, the commonest energy type was Thulium fiber laser, and EAR was performed in 34.0%. Of the six ML models tested, extreme gradient boosting with manual fine tuning was the best-performing with an accuracy of 86.2%, sensitivity of 96.8%, specificity of 23.7%, PPV of 88.2%, and NPV of 55.9%.

Conclusions

We hereby present an ML model for incontinence prediction post-surgery for BPH. Its main strengths are high sensitivity and PPV, meaning that if a patient is predicted to be incontinent using this model, this is likely to reflect the eventual outcome. This allows clinicians to pay closer attention on follow-up to detect and manage postoperative incontinence expediently.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Radar chart of model performance.
Fig. 2: Importance scores for XGB model input variables.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, K.Y.F., upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Schwalbe N, Wahl B. Artificial intelligence and the future of global health. Lancet. 2020;395:1579–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA, Gordon AC, Komorowski M, Harvey H, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ. 2020;368:m689.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen J, Remulla D, Nguyen JH, Dua A, Liu Y, Dasgupta P, et al. Current status of artificial intelligence applications in urology and their potential to influence clinical practice. BJU Int. 2019;124:567–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shah M, Naik N, Somani BK, Hameed BMZ. Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology-Current use and future directions: An iTRUE study. Turk J Urol. 2020;46:S27–s39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Li J, Chong TW, Fong KY, Han BLJ, Tan SY, Mui JTS, et al. Will artificial intelligence (AI) replace cytopathologists: a scoping review of current applications and evidence of A.I. in urine cytology. World J Urol. 2025;43:200.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Castellani D, De Stefano V, Brocca C, Mazzon G, Celia A, Bosio A, et al. The infection post flexible UreteroreNoscopy (I-FUN) predictive model based on machine learning: a new clinical tool to assess the risk of sepsis post retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stone disease. World J Urol. 2024;42:612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Magistro G, Schott M, Keller P, Tamalunas A, Atzler M, Stief CG, et al. Enucleation vs. Resection: A Matched-pair Analysis of TURP, HoLEP and Bipolar TUEP in Medium-sized Prostates. Urology. 2021;154:221–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Castellani D, Rubilotta E, Fabiani A, Maggi M, Wroclawski ML, Teoh JY-C, et al. Correlation Between Transurethral Interventions and Their Influence on Type and Duration of Postoperative Urinary Incontinence: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies. J Endourol. 2022;36:1331–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hout M, Gurayah A, Arbelaez MCS, Blachman-Braun R, Shah K, Herrmann TRW, et al. Incidence and risk factors for postoperative urinary incontinence after various prostate enucleation procedures: systemic review and meta-analysis of PubMed literature from 2000 to 2021. World J Urol. 2022;40:2731–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gauhar V, Castellani D, Herrmann TRW, Gökce MI, Fong KY, Gadzhiev N, et al. Incidence of complications and urinary incontinence following endoscopic enucleation of the prostate in men with a prostate volume of 80 ml and above: results from a multicenter, real-world experience of 2512 patients. World J Urol. 2024;42:180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gauhar V, Gómez Sancha F, Enikeev D, Sofer M, Fong KY, Rodríguez Socarrás M, et al. Results from a global multicenter registry of 6193 patients to refine endoscopic anatomical enucleation of the prostate (REAP) by evaluating trends and outcomes and nuances of prostate enucleation in a real-world setting. World J Urol. 2023;41:3033–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rokach L. Ensemble-based classifiers. Artificial Intell Rev. 2010;33:1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Langenberger B, Schulte T, Groene O. The application of machine learning to predict high-cost patients: A performance-comparison of different models using healthcare claims data. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0279540.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Luu BC, Wright AL, Haeberle HS, Karnuta JM, Schickendantz MS, Makhni EC, et al. Machine Learning Outperforms Logistic Regression Analysis to Predict Next-Season NHL Player Injury: An Analysis of 2322 Players From 2007 to 2017. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8:2325967120953404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Hong W, Zhou X, Jin S, Lu Y, Pan J, Lin Q, et al. A Comparison of XGBoost, Random Forest, and Nomograph for the Prediction of Disease Severity in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia: Implications of Cytokine and Immune Cell Profile. Frontiers Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:2022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Khalilia M, Chakraborty S, Popescu M. Predicting disease risks from highly imbalanced data using random forest. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Houssin V, Olivier J, Brenier M, Pierache A, Laniado M, Mouton M, et al. Predictive factors of urinary incontinence after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a multicentric evaluation. World J Urol. 2021;39:143–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cornwell LB, Smith GE, Paonessa JE. Predictors of Postoperative Urinary Incontinence After Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: 12 Months Follow-Up. Urology. 2019;124:213–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Herrin J, Abraham NS, Yao X, Noseworthy PA, Inselman J, Shah ND, et al. Comparative effectiveness of machine learning approaches for predicting gastrointestinal bleeds in patients receiving antithrombotic treatment. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2110703-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang F. Machine learning for predicting rare clinical outcomes—finding needles in a haystack. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2110738-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saraswat D, Bhattacharya P, Verma A, Prasad VK, Tanwar S, Sharma G, et al. Explainable AI for Healthcare 5.0: Opportunities and Challenges. IEEE Access. 2022;10:84486–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

KYF: Methodology, Software, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Visualization. VG: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Project Administration. TRWH: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. CN: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. DE: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. JCYT: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. SB: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. SKKY: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Project Administration. DC: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Project Administration. BKS: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision. PJJ: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. VHLG: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision. EJA: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. EJL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Supervision, Project Administration.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khi Yung Fong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

(a) All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. (b) Approval has been obtained from a named ethics committee: Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology, AINU #11/2022. (c) Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fong, K.Y., Gauhar, V., Herrmann, T.R.W. et al. Machine learning models to predict postoperative incontinence after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: An EAU-Endourology study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-025-01015-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-025-01015-1

Search

Quick links