Repeated Intradetrusor Botulinum Toxin Type A in Children With Neurogenic Bladder Due to Myelomeningocele
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of repeated intradetrusor injections of BTA in pediatric myelomeningocele not responding to medical management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After baseline history, physical examination and urodynamic assessment BTA was injected (5 IU/kg body weight, maximum 300 IU) at 10 to 30 sites. Clinical and urodynamic assessment was performed at 3 months after each injection. Re-treatment was offered when clinical symptoms returned. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (average age 13 years) received BTA injections. Of the patients 13 became continent. MBC increased from 215.6 +/- 58.8 cc to 338.3 +/- 98.4 cc (p < 0.01), MDP decreased from 43 +/- 13.7 cm H2O to 21.6 +/- 10.5 cm H2O (p < 0.01) and compliance increased from 5.2 +/- 2.6 ml/cm H2O to 13 +/- 6.9 ml/cm H2O (p < 0.01). At an average of 8.1 months after the first injection all 13 patients received a second injection, which led to similar improvement, ie MBC increased from 200.5 +/- 41.6 cc to 404.2 +/- 57.8 cc (p < 0.001), MDP decreased from 48.18 +/- 6.1 cm H2O to 27.8 +/- 3.7 cm H2O (p < 0.01) and compliance increased from 6.0 +/- 3.1 ml/cm H2O to 15.1 +/- 5.2 ml/cm H2O (p < 0.01). Among the responders 3 received 3 injections and 1 received 4 injections, all of whom exhibited improvement similar to that seen initially. Among our initial cohort of 20 patients 7 failed to improve initially and 6 failed to improve after a second injection. CONCLUSIONS: BTA seems to be a simple and safe way to postpone or avoid invasive procedures in two thirds of children with myelomeningocele not responding to usual medical 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".