MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001643194 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.050

Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Comparative Analysis of Retrograde Endopyelotomy Versus Redo Pyeloplasty

2007· article· en· W2001643194 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePyeloplastySurgeryUreterUreteropelvic junctionGeneral surgeryHydronephrosisUrinary systemAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it