Feasibility of Vesicoamniotic Shunt Insertion in an Inanimate Model: Comparison of Fetoscopic and Ultrasound-Guided Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of fetoscopic vesicoamniotic shunt insertion (F-VASI) in an inanimate model and to compare F-VASI to ultrasound (US)-guided VASI (US-VASI) with respect to accuracy of shunt placement and overall success rate. METHODS: An inanimate second-trimester fetus with a replaceable bladder balloon was suspended in a pressurized water tank and localized with US. Fetal position was randomized, the operator was blinded and a 5-Fr Harrison Shunt® decompressed the bladder in both groups. Thirty shunt insertions were performed per group. RESULTS: Procedure time was longer for F-VASI (15.0 vs. 2.8 min, p < 0.05), although it decreased with practice. F-VASI and US-VASI were similar for adequate depth of insertion (27/30 vs. 27/30, p = 1.0), placement within 1 cm of midline (27/30 vs. 25/30, p = 0.42), bladder puncture (28/30 vs. 28/30, p = 1.0), and overall success rate (27/30 vs. 23/30, p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: F-VASI is feasible in an inanimate model. Overall success rate was similar between the groups, although procedure time was longer for F-VASI. Further study is required to determine whether shunt migration is decreased with F-VASI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".