236 EXPERIENCE WITH RECTOURETHRAL FISTULA REPAIR AND DESCRIPTION OF A NOVEL SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Reconstruction: Trauma & Reconstructive Surgery III1 Apr 2012236 EXPERIENCE WITH RECTOURETHRAL FISTULA REPAIR AND DESCRIPTION OF A NOVEL SURGICAL TECHNIQUE Ashley Cox, Paul Toren, and Sender Herschorn Ashley CoxAshley Cox Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Paul TorenPaul Toren Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , and Sender HerschornSender Herschorn Toronto, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.291AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Rectourethral fistula (RUF) is a rare complication following treatment of prostatic or rectal pathology. Many of the cases require surgical repair including fecal and urinary diversion. We report our experience with several surgical techniques including a novel abdominal approach to the repair of RUF. METHODS The records of all RUF treated at our institution were reviewed. Patient demographics, fistula etiology, method of fecal diversion, details of surgical treatment and urological outcomes were recorded and analyzed using Visual dBase 5.7. The decision regarding surgical technique for RUF repair was made on an individual basis and is shown in the Table. Six patients underwent an abdominal repair that involved either radical prostatectomy or takedown of the vesico-urethral anastomosis, direct closure of the rectal defect with tissue interposition, and anastomosis or reanastomosis of the bladder and urethra. Transanal York-Mason Transperineal Abdominal Etiology +Prostatectomy Redo vesicourethral anastomosis N 3 7 2 4 2 Prostatectomy +/- DVIU⁎⁎ 3 7 1 Radiation/HIFU⁎ 1 2 Rectal surgery 1 2 1 ⁎ high intensity focused ultrasound. ⁎⁎ direct vision urethrotomy. RESULTS Eighteen patients underwent repair of a RUF. Mean age was 65.6 years (range 45.9-85.7). Mean follow-up after repair was 41.3 months (range 1-293). RUF etiology included: radical prostatectomy (12), endoscopic management of bladder neck contrature (4), brachytherapy (2), external beam radiotherapy (2), HIFU (1), low anterior rectal resection (1), anal atresia (1), and anal trauma (1). Seven patients had multiple therapies causing the fistula and 2 had coexistent inflammatory bowel disease. Seventeen had fecal diversion (6 colostomy, 11 ileostomy), usually performed prior to the RUF repair. The mean time to diversion reversal was 8.8 months (range 4.2- 12.1) following RUF repair. Post-operatively, 2 patients developed bladder neck contractures requiring urethrotomy and 3 patients underwent successful incontinence procedures (2 artificial urinary sphincters and 1 Argus sling). To date there has been no RUF recurrence. CONCLUSIONS RUF is associated with multiple causative factors. An individualized approach to repair affords a good outcome. Temporary fecal diversion is helpful in many cases. A new abdominal approach involving either prostatectomy or take-down and redoing of the vesico-urethral anastomosis can be associated with a successful outcome. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e97 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ashley Cox Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Paul Toren Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Sender Herschorn Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".