Laparoscopic Management of Ureteral Endometriosis: The Stanford University Hospital Experience With 96 Consecutive Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report the clinical characteristics and the principles of laparoscopic management of ureteral endometriosis at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with ureteral endometriosis. RESULTS: Preoperatively 97% of patients complained of pain but only a third had urinary symptoms. The left ureter was affected in 64% of cases and disease was bilateral in 10%. Four patients had hydroureter and 2 had hydronephrosis. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this report represents the largest series of laparoscopically treated, pathologically confirmed ureteral endometriotic cases to date. It confirms that laparoscopic diagnosis and management of ureteral endometriosis are safe and efficient. All patients who undergo laparoscopy for endometriosis should be evaluated for possible ureteral involvement regardless of the presence or absence of urinary symptoms, or prior radiological evaluation since undiagnosed ureteral disease may result in loss of renal function.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".