Bricker versus Wallace anastomosis: A meta-analysis of ureteroenteric stricture rates after ileal conduit urinary diversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Data comparing the incidence of ureteroenteric strictures for Bricker and Wallace anastomoses are limited. This study compares both anastomotic techniques in terms of ureteroenteric stricture rates after radical cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane database) were searched for studies comparing Bricker and Wallace ureteroeneteric anastomoses for ileal conduit urinary diversion after radical cystectomy. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects method. The primary outcome measure was to determine differences in postoperative ureteroenteric stricture rates for both surgical techniques. Four studies describing 658 patients met the inclusion criteria. The total number of ureters used for ureteroeneteric anastomoses was 1217 (545 in the Bricker group and 672 in the Wallace group). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age (p = 0.472), gender (p = 0.897), duration of follow-up (p = 0.168), and duration to stricture development between groups (p = 0.439). The overall stricture rate was 29 of 1217 (2.4%); 16 of 545 ureters (2.9%) in the Bricker group and 13 of 672 ureters (1.9%) in the Wallace group. The Bricker anastomosis was not associated with a significantly higher overall stricture rate compared to the Wallace ureteroenteric anastomosis (odds ratio: 1.393, 95% confidence interval: 0.441-4.394, p = 0.572). CONCLUSION: Accepting limitations in the available data, we found no significant difference in the incidence of ureteroenteric stricture for Bricker and Wallace anastomoses.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".