Intracorporeal neobladder reconstruction: pressure‐flow urodyamic studies in cadaveric orthotopic neobladders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the pressure-flow characteristics of neobladders created in various configurations that may be constructed intra-abdominally. Complete intracorporeal neobladder construction has been previously described but is limited due to excessive operative time and the need for an advanced laparoscopic skill set. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four neobladder configurations were constructed, each using 20 cm of human cadaveric small intestine. The standard hand sewn Studer pouch was compared with a circular loop, W-pouch, and U-pouch with stapled anastamoses. Pressure flow studies were completed using the Aquarius TT UDS system (Laborie Medical Technologies, Toronto, Ontario) and each neobladder was filled to a pressure of 50 cm H2O. Neobladder change in pressure, capacity, and overall compliance were determined. RESULTS: The cystometric capacities of the stapled U-pouch, W-pouch, Circle pouch, and Studer pouch were 167.3 mL, 177.5 mL, 114 mL, and 145.2 mL respectively. The first increase in intravesical pressure was at 90.3 mL, 103 mL, 50 mL, and 85 mL. The greatest compliance of 3.81 mL/cmH2O was demonstrated in the U-pouch, with the W-pouch revealing a compliance of 3.44 mL/cmH2O. The least compliant neobladder was the circle pouch (2.24 mL/cmH20) followed by the standard Studer pouch (2.94 mL/cmH2O). CONCLUSION: The construction of an orthotopic neobladder must not only be technically feasible but maintain adequate capacity and compliance for optimal functioning. Pressure-flow studies demonstrated equivalent results in alternate neobladder configurations. Additional data is needed to determine feasibility in vivo.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".