MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2940756821 · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000555092.64436.7d

MP07-08 CONTEMPORARY MULTICENTER OUTCOMES OF AUGMENTATION CYSTOPLASTY IN THE ADULT POPULATION OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD: A NEUROGENIC BLADDER RESEARCH GROUP (NBRG) STUDY

2019· article· en· W2940756821 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip J. Cheng, Sorena Keihani, Sanchita Bose, Rose Khavari, Sean P. Elliott, Joseph J. Pariser, Joshua D. Roth, Blayne Welk, Michael Kennelly, Cameron Futral, David A. Ginsberg, Christopher S. Elliott, Kyla Valaer, Sara Lenherr, Yahir Santiago‐Lastra, John T. Stoffel, Jeremy B. Myers

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMulticenter studyNeurogenic bladder dysfunctionPeriod (music)Urinary bladderSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction (MP07)1 Apr 2019MP07-08 CONTEMPORARY MULTICENTER OUTCOMES OF AUGMENTATION CYSTOPLASTY IN THE ADULT POPULATION OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD: A NEUROGENIC BLADDER RESEARCH GROUP (NBRG) STUDY Philip Cheng*, Sorena Keihani, Sanchita Bose, Rose Khavari, Sean Elliott, Joseph Pariser, Joshua Roth, Blayne Welk, Michael Kennelly, Cameron Futral, David Ginsberg, Christopher Elliott, Kyla Valaer, Sara Lenherr, Yahir Santiago-Lastra, John Stoffel, and Jeremy Myers Philip Cheng*Philip Cheng* More articles by this author , Sorena KeihaniSorena Keihani More articles by this author , Sanchita BoseSanchita Bose More articles by this author , Rose KhavariRose Khavari More articles by this author , Sean ElliottSean Elliott More articles by this author , Joseph PariserJoseph Pariser More articles by this author , Joshua RothJoshua Roth More articles by this author , Blayne WelkBlayne Welk More articles by this author , Michael KennellyMichael Kennelly More articles by this author , Cameron FutralCameron Futral More articles by this author , David GinsbergDavid Ginsberg More articles by this author , Christopher ElliottChristopher Elliott More articles by this author , Kyla ValaerKyla Valaer More articles by this author , Sara LenherrSara Lenherr More articles by this author , Yahir Santiago-LastraYahir Santiago-Lastra More articles by this author , John StoffelJohn Stoffel More articles by this author , and Jeremy MyersJeremy Myers More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555092.64436.7dAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of bladder augmentation in the adult population in a multicenter study. A secondary objective is to compare outcomes between patients who underwent a concomitant catheterizable channel placement vs. those who underwent a bladder augmentation alone. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 193 patients from 7 sites from the Neurogenic Bladder Research Group who underwent bladder augmentation between July 2007 and September 2017. 23 patients were excluded due to age under 18 (2) or follow-up < 6 months (21). We evaluated patient demographics, modality and type of surgery, 90-day complications and readmissions, and follow-up surgeries. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients with a median age of 37 years were included in the study. 73 (43%) patients were male and the leading etiologies were spinal cord injury (81, 47%) and spina bifida (25, 15%). Prior to surgery, most patients' bladder management was clean intermittent catheterization (76, 45%), followed by indwelling urethral catheter or suprapubic tube (61, 36%). 137 (81%) patients underwent a bladder augmentation with a catheterizable channel, while 33 (19%) patients underwent a small bowel augmentation alone. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days (IQR 7-11) for channel patients and 7 days (IQR 6-10) for augment-only patients. The 90-day major complication rate was 13% (22 patients), which included 17 (12%) channel patients and 5 (15%) augment-only patients (p = 0.40). In the 90-day post-operative period, 33 (19%) patients were readmitted and there were 0 deaths; there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Beyond the 90-day period, 64 patients (38%) underwent a total of 90 surgeries related to their bladder augment. 6 of the 33 (18%) augment-only patients underwent 9 surgeries while 58 of the 137 (42%) channel patients underwent 81 surgeries (p = 0.01), 36 of which were for channel-specific complications (i.e. stenosis, leakage, and parastomal hernia). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first contemporary multicenter series evaluating bladder augmentation in the adult population. 90-day major complication rates were low, but many of these patients--primarily the ones with catheterizable channels--required follow-up surgeries. Source of Funding: None Salt Lake City, UT; Houston, TX; Minneapolis, MN; London, Canada; Chapel Hill, NC; Los Angeles, CA; San Jose, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; San Diego, CA; Ann Arbor, MI; Salt Lake City, UT© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e93-e93 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Philip Cheng* More articles by this author Sorena Keihani More articles by this author Sanchita Bose More articles by this author Rose Khavari More articles by this author Sean Elliott More articles by this author Joseph Pariser More articles by this author Joshua Roth More articles by this author Blayne Welk More articles by this author Michael Kennelly More articles by this author Cameron Futral More articles by this author David Ginsberg More articles by this author Christopher Elliott More articles by this author Kyla Valaer More articles by this author Sara Lenherr More articles by this author Yahir Santiago-Lastra More articles by this author John Stoffel More articles by this author Jeremy Myers More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,052
Tête enseignante GPT0,381
Écart entre enseignants0,329 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Urology→Même sujetUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research→Travaux en français237 207→