Tubularized Incised Plate Repair: Functional Outcome After Intermediate Followup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We describe the functional outcome following tubularized incised plate repair of hypospadias in toilet trained children after an intermediate followup. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children were included in this study only if they were toilet trained and had flow rate data not less than 6 months after primary tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair or 2 months after any secondary procedure to correct complications. Uroflow data (peak flow, voided volume and post-void residuals) were analyzed and plotted on previously determined age-volume dependent nomograms. RESULTS: Of the 48 boys 39 required no secondary procedures, while 9 secondary fistula closures were performed in 2, meatotomy in 2 and dilation in 5. After either primary (26) or secondary (7) procedures 33 of the 48 patients (68.7%) had normal peak flow rate and 15 (31.3%) had low peak flow rate. Of the 48 patients 46 had post-void residual urine less than 10% of voided volume. CONCLUSIONS: Most children will void efficiently with no straining and no post-void residual (1/2) to 4 years after tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair. Of our patients 68.7% have normal peak flow rate. Intermediate followup of larger series and followup at puberty are recommended to resolve the debate concerning the long-term functional outcome of tubularized incised plate hypospadias repair.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".