Retubularization of the ileocystoplasty patch for conversion into an ileal conduit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We present the outcomes and long-term follow-up of patients who underwent conversion to an ileal conduit urinary diversion using the retubularized patch from the initial augmentation ileocystoplasty. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent this surgery at our centre. The indications for surgery, workup, clinical outcomes and complication rates were assessed. Patient-reported symptom response based on global response assessment (GRA) was determined and used as a subjective measure of overall treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with either bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) (n = 11) or neurogenic bladder (n = 2) were followed for a mean of 80 months. The most common indication for surgical conversion was persistent lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or bladder pain. Late complications were frequent, typically low-grade, and usually manageable with conservative therapy; the most common were urinary tract infections (n = 6) and parastomal hernias (n = 5). Two patients developed ureteric strictures. Nine of 13 patients required additional surgery to manage complications or persistent symptoms. Only 5 of 11 GRA respondents reported a successful therapeutic outcome and BPS/IC patients who underwent concurrent cystourethrectomy tended to be most satisfied (2/3). Nevertheless, several patients still achieved symptom control when no other treatment options were available to them. CONCLUSION: Conversion to an ileal conduit using the retubularized ileocystoplasty patch offers several technical and therapeutic advantages over creating a urinary diversion from a new bowel segment. It should therefore be considered a viable treatment option in patients who have exhausted more conservative management of their LUTS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".