Intelligent Behaviour Analytics: A Novel Framework for Effective Leadership Style Transitioning

The last three decades saw a reliance on the use of personality tests by businesses and organisations trying to gain a competitive advantage in the market through avenues such as recruitment, team building, leadership development and culture alignment. The commissioning of early 20th Century personality models such as DISC and Myers-Briggs are claimed to provide valuable insights and benefits in various aspects of the employment process. They have however been controversially debated in the academic community due to issues surrounding validity and reliability. Discussions concerning leadership styles and leaders responsible for managing employees, are similarly indeterminate despite being subject to extensive research and analysis for many decades. Academics have yet to provide a comprehensive explanation of the holistic mechanisms underlying effective leadership. Instead, they have argued over factors such as a leader’s traits, attributes, power relations or unidimensional versus collaborative models of engaging a work force. Current leadership theory literature demonstrates a paucity of leader self-understanding and self-reflection. We consider these two attributes as fundamental qualities of effective leadership, whereby an individual can transform and enhance their use of any leadership style. In thispaper, we propose an advanced 21st Century solution that leverages the Intelligent Behaviour Analytics (IBA) framework, incorporating a deep and more effective understanding of leaders and their ability to transition between different leadershipstyles. Additionally, this framework offers methods for transitioning to more effective leadership styles based on situational requirements and takes into account a leader’s own emotional and behavioural registers. This approach offers a structured opportunity for leaders to identify any biases, understand the reasons that these may develop and furthermore, evaluate the efficacy of their own behavioural traits and the way they, as individuals interact, manage and lead a team. The IBA framework is a multi-stage, holistic approach that proposes to improve performance metrics, organisational culture, business outcomes and increased wellbeing

Is Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Truly Size-Independent? A Critical Evaluation at the Extreme Ends of the Spectrum

To assess the outcomes of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) at the extremes of the size spectrum, comparing whether the results are consistent for very large and small prostates. A retrospective review of 402 patient charts was conducted to compare the outcomes of HoLEP in patients with prostate size 200 g (Group 3). Various preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative variables were collected. HoLEP showed comparable voiding outcomes among all three groups, although patients with small prostates had a higher International Prostate Symptom Score during follow-up (p=0.022). We noted a higher rate of perioperative blood transfusion in patients with very large prostates (p=0.019) and a higher rate of transient acute urinary retention (AUR) in Group 1 when compared to Group 3 (p=0.048). Patients with smaller prostates had a higher rate of bladder neck stenosis and urethral strictures, but the differences were not found to be statistically significant. The incidence of other complications, length of hospital stay, and catheterization duration did not differ significantly among the groups. HoLEP has consistent and safe outcomes across a wide range of prostate sizes. Although, the risk of blood transfusion is higher in patients with very large prostates and the risk of transient AUR is greater in patients with small glands, the overall efficacy and safety of HoLEP are not significantly influenced by prostate size

Is Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Truly Size-Independent? A Critical Evaluation at the Extreme Ends of the Spectrum

OBJECTIVE To assess the outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) at the extremes of the size spectrum, comparing whether the results are consistent for very large and small prostates.METHODS A retrospective review of 402 patient charts was conducted to compare the outcomes of HoLEP in patients with prostate size 200 g (group 3). Various preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative variables were collected.RESULTS HoLEP showed comparable voiding outcomes among all 3 groups, although patients with small prostates had a higher International Prostate Symptom Score during follow-up (P = .022). We noted a higher rate of perioperative blood transfusion in patients with very large prostates (P = .019) and a higher rate of transient acute urinary retention (AUR) in group 1 when compared to group 3 (P = .048). Patients with smaller prostates had a higher rate of bladder neck stenosis and urethral strictures, but the differences were not found to be statistically significant. The incidence of other complications, length of hospital stay, and catheterization duration did not differ significantly among the groups.CONCLUSION HoLEP has consistent and safe outcomes across a wide range of prostate sizes. Although, the risk of blood transfusion is higher in patients with very large prostates and the risk of transient AUR is greater in patients with small glands, the overall efficacy and safety of HoLEP are not significantly influenced by prostate size.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Incidental prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Critical analysis of independent risk factors and impact on surgical outcomes

Abstract Objectives The objectives of this study are to evaluate the impact of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) and its different grade group (GG) on the surgical outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and, furthermore, to assess the independent risk factors associated with the detection of iPCa. Patients (or materials) and Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted at a single institution for HoLEP cases that were performed between 2017 and 2022. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of prostate cancer and those without baseline prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) levels within 1 year were excluded. Four hundred seventeen patients were divided into three groups: benign prostatic hyperplasia—377; clinically insignificant (GG 1)—29; and clinically significant prostate cancer (GG 2–5)—11. The preoperative parameters analysed included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, use of 5‐alpha‐reductase inhibitors, PSA, prostate size, PSA density, and history of negative prostate biopsy. To evaluate the association between clinical and demographic variables, a multivariable‐adjusted logistic regression analysis was performed. We also assessed intraoperative and post‐operative outcomes among these three groups. Results A total of 417 patients were analysed; 40 (9.6%) patients had iPCa, of which 29 (72.5%) and 11 (27.5%) were clinically nonsignificant and significant prostate cancer, respectively. Of all the demographic and preoperative variables analysed, hypertension was significantly associated with overall prostate cancer diagnosis (p < 0.05), and no other variable including patient age, preoperative PSA, PSA density, prostate size, or prior prostate biopsy were associated with increased risk of overall prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis. Most cases of iPCa were GG1, and 34 (85%) were managed with active surveillance. Conclusion The rate of iPCa after HoLEP was 9.6%, with most cases being GG 1 (72.5%) and managed through active surveillance. Age, prostate size, baseline PSA, and prior negative prostate biopsies were not associated with increased risk of iPCa

Incidental prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Critical analysis of independent risk factors and impact on surgical outcomes

Abstract Objectives The objectives of this study are to evaluate the impact of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) and its different grade group (GG) on the surgical outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and, furthermore, to assess the independent risk factors associated with the detection of iPCa. Patients (or materials) and Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted at a single institution for HoLEP cases that were performed between 2017 and 2022. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of prostate cancer and those without baseline prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) levels within 1 year were excluded. Four hundred seventeen patients were divided into three groups: benign prostatic hyperplasia—377; clinically insignificant (GG 1)—29; and clinically significant prostate cancer (GG 2–5)—11. The preoperative parameters analysed included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, use of 5‐alpha‐reductase inhibitors, PSA, prostate size, PSA density, and history of negative prostate biopsy. To evaluate the association between clinical and demographic variables, a multivariable‐adjusted logistic regression analysis was performed. We also assessed intraoperative and post‐operative outcomes among these three groups. Results A total of 417 patients were analysed; 40 (9.6%) patients had iPCa, of which 29 (72.5%) and 11 (27.5%) were clinically nonsignificant and significant prostate cancer, respectively. Of all the demographic and preoperative variables analysed, hypertension was significantly associated with overall prostate cancer diagnosis ( p  < 0.05), and no other variable including patient age, preoperative PSA, PSA density, prostate size, or prior prostate biopsy were associated with increased risk of overall prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis. Most cases of iPCa were GG1, and 34 (85%) were managed with active surveillance. Conclusion The rate of iPCa after HoLEP was 9.6%, with most cases being GG 1 (72.5%) and managed through active surveillance. Age, prostate size, baseline PSA, and prior negative prostate biopsies were not associated with increased risk of iPCa