How Much Does the Midline Incision Add to Urethral Diameter After Tubularized Incised Plate Urethroplasty? An Experimental Animal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We objectively quantified the gain in urethral diameter and the effect of stenting after tubularized incised plate urethroplasty in a rabbit hypospadias model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a hypospadias model in 12 New Zealand white male rabbits by excising the ventral urethra. A 3 cm tattoo line was made longitudinally in the dorsal urethral plate midline. Two weeks later a 2 cm relaxing incision was made in the middle part of the tattooed line. The stretched incision width between the tattooed edges was measured, followed by urethral plate tubularization. Six rabbits were stented and 6 were nonstented. Two weeks later the animals were sacrificed and the distance separating the tattoo was measured at the midpoint of the tattooed line. Transverse sections at this point were examined histologically. RESULTS: All animals survived the procedures. Stents were removed at 7 days in 4 rabbits and fell out in 2 at 4 and 2 days, respectively. The mean ± SD incision width of 5.5 ± 1.6 mm (range 3 to 8) at tubularization became 2 ± 0.5 mm (range 1 to 3) after healing (p <0.002). Mean width of the healed incision was 1.7 ± 0.4 (range 1 to 2) vs 2.3 ± 0.5 mm (range 1.5 to 3) in the nonstented and stented groups, respectively (p <0.06). Rabbits with a stenting duration of less than 7 days were excluded from the last analysis. Histologically all incisions healed completely with an intact epithelium. CONCLUSIONS: The initial width of the midline relaxing incision significantly decreased after complete epithelialization. The average gain in urethral width was only 2 mm. Stenting appeared to increase the width of the healed incisions but not in a statistically significant manner.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".