Symptomatic versus asymptomatic pyeloplasties: A single institution review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Historically, pyeloplasties have been performed after symptoms and radiographic confirmation of an ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). However, with prenatal ultrasonography, the approach to patients has fundamentally changed. Increasingly, patients are diagnosed and treated before the advent of morbidity, based on imaging findings alone. However, optimum screening strategies and thresholds for intervention vary significantly, are controversial, and are not founded on outcome-based evidence. We examined all pyeloplasties performed at our institution and reviewed their indication for surgery. We hypothesized that, despite ubiquitous screening for UPJO, most pyeloplasties had been performed secondary to symptoms and did not benefit from antenatal screening. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all pyeloplasties performed at the Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, over the past 8 years. Patients were categorized according to indication for surgery: symptomatic or asymptomatic. RESULTS: Most (60%) of our pyeloplasties were performed for symptomatic indications. Furthermore, 12% of these patients had antenatally detected hydronephrosis that was thought to have resolved spontaneously during follow-up. Of our symptomatic patients, 37% were undergoing surveillance with the expectation for spontaneous resolution. Of the 29 patients who underwent pyeloplasty, 8 suffered a preoperative loss of function on renal scans; however, only 50% returned to within 90% of their original function. CONCLUSION: Despite active surveillance of antenatally detected hydronephrosis, most pyeloplasties at our institution were performed for de-novo symptoms. We believe that this simple observation reinforces that our current surveillance strategies are unable to predict and eliminate all morbidity from UPJO.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".