Post‐augmentation bladder perforation during urodynamic investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To report for the first time bladder rupture during filling cystometry many years after bladder augmentation. METHODS: A 17-year-old girl with T10 meningomyelocele had received an ileocystoplasty, continent catheterizable stoma, and bladder neck sling for neurogenic bladder dysfunction and intractable incontinence 8 years previously. She was continent with clean intermittent self-catheterization four times per day. Yearly urodynamics showed a bladder capacity of up to 700 ml with good compliance and low bladder pressures. In March 2006, filling cystometry was performed. RESULTS: Bladder pressure was normal until 400 ml, after which it increased due to lower compliance. At 620 ml filling, the detrusor pressure was 52 cm H2O, and the patient complained suddenly of abdominal discomfort and bilateral shoulder pain, and the infusion was stopped. A catheter was placed and cystography showed intraperitoneal leakage along the left lateral bladder aspect and at the Mitrofanoff insertion site on the bladder dome. The perforations were closed via a midline incision and a ventriculoperitoneal shunt had to be exteriorized. There were no post-operative complications and a control cystogram revealed no leakage. CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation ileocystoplasty has been used extensively in order to increase bladder capacity and decrease intravesical pressure. Although spontaneous or traumatic perforation of the augmented bladder has been described previously, it was never reported in correlation with urodynamic investigation. Extreme caution is warranted in the face of decreased compliance during filling cystometry in these patients, even though urodynamics showed good bladder compliance and low bladder pressures many years after ileocystoplasty.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".