Determination of Success by Objective Scintigraphic Criteria After Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) is a minimally invasive technique with high success rates that match open procedures. There are a variety of success definitions. We have defined and reported our success rate by objective renal scintigraphic criteria. We also compare our scintigraphic success with clinical success defined by absence of pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively 111 adult cases of laparoscopic pyeloplasties. The Anderson-Hynes technique was used in 98% of cases. nonprimary pyeloplasties represented 12 cases of our series. Renal scintigraphic success rates were defined as: strict (T(1/2) <10 min), nonobstructive (T(1/2) <20 min), and technical success (improved T(1/2)). Of our patients, 83% had renal scintigraphy before and after surgery. RESULTS: Average operative time was 128 +/- 45 minutes, blood loss was 52 +/- 168 mL, and median postoperative hospital stay was 3 days. After surgery, T(1/2) was decreased by 26 minutes for a median time of 13 minutes. Strict success was achieved in 61% of cases, while nonobstructive success and technical success were achieved in 86% and 93%, respectively. No difference in success was observed between primary and nonprimary cases. Clinical success (absence of symptoms) was achieved in 95% of LPs. We also show that 75% of patients who had obstruction after LP based on scintigraphic criteria were asymptomatic, showing a poor correlation between symptoms and obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: By defining success with renal scintigraphic criteria, we still obtain a high success rate. When using strict criteria, however, the success decreases and might identify patients at risk of late recurrence.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".