Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Comparative Analysis of Retrograde Endopyelotomy Versus Redo Pyeloplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared retrograde endopyelotomy to redo pyeloplasty for the treatment of failed pyeloplasty in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 32 patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction retrograde endopyelotomy was performed in 18 and redo pyeloplasty was performed in 14. Patient age, gender, side, stent placement at initial pyeloplasty, presentation of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, hospital stay, complications and success rates were compared. Success was defined as radiographic relief of obstruction as determined by ultrasound or diuretic renography at latest followup. RESULTS: Median patient age was 6 years (range 2 to 14) at retrograde endopyelotomy and 7.2 years (1 to 17) at redo pyeloplasty. Retrograde endopyelotomy technique consisted of holmium laser in 10 patients and cautery/balloon dilation in 8. Redo pyeloplasty was performed through a flank incision in 12 patients and by laparoscopy in 2. Retrograde endopyelotomy was successful in 39% of the patients, while redo pyeloplasty had a 100% success rate (p = 0.002). Of the patients with failed retrograde endopyelotomy 5 had a stricture greater than 1 cm and 7 were younger than 4 years. Mean length of the narrowed ureteral segment was 10.1 mm in the failed retrograde endopyelotomy group vs 5.8 mm in the successful group (p <0.01). Only 1 of 8 children (13%) had a successful retrograde endopyelotomy using cautery followed by balloon dilation. Hospital stay was 1.3 days for the retrograde endopyelotomy group and 2.9 days for the redo pyeloplasty group (p <0.01). Mean followup was 47 months (range 15 to 132) after retrograde endopyelotomy and 33.1 months (12 to 78) after redo pyeloplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde endopyelotomy had a significantly lower success rate than redo pyeloplasty for correction of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed pyeloplasty in children. Patient age less than 4 years and narrowed ureteral segment greater than 10 mm were associated with a poor outcome after retrograde endopyelotomy.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".