Treatment and outcome of fibroepithelial ureteral polyps: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fibroepithelial polyps of the ureter are rare. Cases and small series are reported in the literature. The treatment of choice, outcome and appropriate follow-up regimen remain unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of papers reporting fibroepithelial polyps of the ureter in adult patients. Articles published before 1980 were excluded. RESULTS: The search yielded 144 papers, of which 68 met the inclusion criteria. A reference scan from the included 68 yielded an additional 7 new articles. In total, our study included 75 articles (68 + 7). A total of 134 patients were described. Most patients had a single lesion (range: 1-10). The median length of the polyp was 4.0 cm (range: 0.4-17.0). The percentage of polyps resected endoscopically increased from 0% before 1985 to 67% after 2005. Two perioperative complications were reported in 72 procedures (2.8%): a deep venous thrombosis and a case of mesenteric lymphadenopathy. Both of these occurred after open surgery. Follow-up data were available for 57 patients. The median follow-up was 12 months (range: 1-180). Four patients (7.0%) developed recurrent complaints: 2 had urinary stones, 1 had a ureteral stricture and 1 had recurrence of the polyp. Three of these events followed endoscopic resection, and occurred within a year after the procedure. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic resection of fibroepithelial polyps seems to be safe and effective. It is minimally invasive and should be considered the gold standard where endoscopic expertise is available. We advise follow-up imaging by computed tomographic intravenous urography after 3 months and ultrasound after 1 year to detect late complications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".