ARE POSTOPERATIVE STUDIES JUSTIFIED AFTER EXTRAVESICAL URETERAL REIMPLANTATION?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the usefulness of postoperative imaging studies after extravesical ureteroneocystostomy and identified patient subsets in which these studies are necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 438 patients who had undergone extravesical ureteroneocystostomy from 1991 to 1997 were reviewed retrospectively. Study inclusion criterion was primary reflux with at least 1 year of postoperative followup. Grades I to III reflux were defined as low, and grades IV and V were defined as high. All patients were on prophylactic antibiotics. Evaluation included ultrasound and a voiding cystourethrogram 3 months postoperatively, and if reflux persisted the studies were repeated at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients (723 renal units) underwent extravesical ureteral reimplantation. At 3 months the procedure was successful in 93.2% of ureters (91.3% patients), and at 12 months the success rate increased to 97.9% of ureters (95.4% patients). There were 49 renal units in 38 cases that were refluxing at 3 months, 11 of which were contralateral. At 12 months reflux resolved spontaneously in 20 of 38 ipsilateral and 8 of 11 contralateral ureters. Of the remaining 18 ipsilateral units reflux was high grade preoperatively in 12 and persisted postoperatively in 4. There was a statistically significant difference in the success rate at 1 year between high (94%) versus low (99%) grade reflux (p = 0.007). Age and preoperative bladder function did not significantly affect the success rates but males had a lower success rate. Hydronephrosis was noted in 7.2% of ureters at 6 weeks and in only 0.005% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Extravesical reimplantation is successful in treating vesicoureteral reflux. Postoperative voiding cystourethrogram should be reserved for high grade reflux. Limiting these studies will help reduce patient discomfort and the cost of treatment.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".