A novel endoscopic treatment for ureteric remnant hemorrhage post laparoscopic radical nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is commonly used to treat renal masses. Given the ubiquitous presence of this technique, rare complications are becoming more commonplace. It is thus essential that practicing urologists be aware of all possible complications as well as the novel management approaches that exist. This report presents a situation in which a patient developed rapid-onset, postoperative gross hematuria. This complication is rare and multiple sources of bleeding must be considered. In the situation reported here, the ureteric remnant was the cause of the unremitting gross hematuria. While others have described surgical exploration as the primary treatment, the authors were successful in using a minimally invasive endoscopic approach with fulguration and instillation of a fibrin sealant. Indeed, they propose that the endoscopic approach described herein may be considered first line in cases of unremitting gross hematuria originating from the ureteric remnant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".