The Role of Prophylactic versus Selective Ureteric Stenting in Kidney Transplant Patients: A Retrospective Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of prophylactic versus selective ureteric stenting in the development of postoperative ureterovesical complications in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: Records of 614 transplant patients seen from January 2006 to May 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was the rate of ureterovesical complications, defined as the development of ureteric obstruction or a ureterovesical anastomotic leak. The secondary outcomes were the rate of urinary tract infections and forgotten stents. Using a χ2 test, we compared the primary and secondary outcomes across the selective and prophylactic cohorts. Logistic regression was used to compare the 2 cohorts while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The selective and prophylactic cohorts consisted of 258 and 330 patients, respectively. Unadjusted analysis showed that the prophylactic group had a significantly lower rate of ureterovesical complications than did the selective group (2.12% vs 6.20%; odds ratio, 0.33; P= .01). After adjustment for differences in sex and donor type, the prophylactic group still had a lower risk for ureterovesical complications (odds ratio, 0.30; P= .009). Rates of urinary tract infections and forgotten stents did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic stenting is associated with a significantly lower rate of ureterovesical complications than is selective stenting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".