Laparoscopically assisted ureterocystoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of ureterocystoplasty, in this case laparoscopically assisted, is addressed by several authors from the USA. The details of their technique are described, and avoiding a large midline incision was found to be particularly beneficial to the patient. Authors from Paris and Toronto describe a further laparoscopic study. They describe a trial comparing the retroperitoneal approach to open partial nephrectomy. These authors also feel that the laparoscopic approach to surgery, in this case partial nephrectomy, is safe and feasible in children, with no increase in operative duration and a shorter hospital stay. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopically assisted ureterocystoplasty (LAU) in children. Patients and methods From 1999 to 2001, five patients (mean age 7 years, range 3.5–13) from four centres underwent LAU with laparoscopic mobilization of the small kidney and upper ureter combined with ureterocystoplasty, with exposure of the bladder through a Pfannenstiel incision. The details and outcomes are reviewed. Results The LAU was successful in all five patients; there were no complications. A large midline incision was avoided and the LAU carried out through the better tolerated and less painful Pfannenstiel incision. Conclusion LAU is an appealing technique that is safe with the added benefit of a reduced abdominal incision and acceptable operative duration. This represents the first published report of LAU.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".