TERMINAL LOOP CUTANEOUS URETEROSTOMY IN RENAL TRANSPLANTATION: AN UNDER UTILIZED URINARY DIVERSION TECHNIQUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the effectiveness of terminal loop cutaneous ureterostomy as a means of urinary drainage in kidney transplant recipients during a 20-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five cadaveric and 2 living related patients underwent kidney transplantation with terminal loop cutaneous ureterostomy between 1984 and 2004. These patients had no usable bladder or they were not suitable candidates for intermittent catheterization. RESULTS: Followup was 20 months to 17 years. One patient underwent stomal revision 5 months after renal transplantation. Current serum creatinine 4 years later was 166 mumol/l. The remaining 6 patients had no evidence of ureteral obstruction and rarely had bacteriuria or urinary tract infections. Four patients had a functioning allograft with normal serum creatinine. One patient died with a normally functioning allograft and the remaining patient lost his graft due to chronic rejection. No patient in this series lost the graft due to a urological cause. Overall outcomes included excellent allograft function with minimal infection or stomal stenotic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Terminal loop cutaneous ureterostomy is a simple, safe and alternative means of urinary diversion in patients with renal transplant and a defunctionalized lower urinary tract.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".