Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the updated McMaster University experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The open Anderson-Hynes procedure has an overall success rate of 90% for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) was developed to reduce morbidity and hospital stay while preserving the excellent results. We report on the results of our experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty. METHODS: Between January 2001 and May 2006, 77 consecutive patients underwent LP performed by one of 4 surgeons at our institution. Patients were reassessed with ultrasound (U/S) or intravenous pyelogram (IVP) at 6 weeks. Diuretic renal scan and U/S or IVP were performed at 6 months, and subsequent follow-up included a U/S or IVP as well as clinical assessment. Patients were assessed for pain and hydronephrosis on radiologic imaging, clearance on diuretic renal scan (T(1/2)) and differential renal function. RESULTS: We evaluated 73 patients. The mean patient age was 38 years (range 16-71 yr), the mean operating time was 218 minutes (range 110-409 min), and the mean blood loss was 57 mL (range 25-250 mL). Mean hospital stay was 3.0 days (range 2-7 d). The success rate was 90.4%, and failures were mainly due to poor function after surgery (3 patients). Pyelolithotomy was performed concomitantly on 6 patients, which on average extended operative time by 36 minutes. CONCLUSION: Our success rates are consistent with the LP experience of other centres and are comparable with rates for the open technique. Patients had short hospital stays, and complications were negligible. With experienced surgeons, LP should be the first-line treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".