Investigation of a Novel Degradable Ureteral Stent in a Porcine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ureteral stents often result in patient morbidity and the potential for a forgotten stent. When the suture tether is detached, a secondary procedure is required for removal. Previous attempts at developing biodegradable ureteral stents have been unsuccessful since those stents were not biocompatible or they failed to degrade in timely fashion. We evaluated a new biodegradable Double-J stent in a porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 36 Yorkshire pigs were stented unilaterally with a biodegradable Uriprene stent or a standard biostable control stent. Excretory urograms, and blood and urine tests were performed at weeks 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10. Four animals per group were sacrificed after 2, 4, 7 and 10 weeks to determine stent degradation and obtain samples for pathological evaluation. RESULTS: Degradable ureteral stents began to degrade at 3 weeks. By weeks 7 and 10, 60% and 100% of the stents, respectively, were fully degraded. There was no significant difference in laboratory parameters or the amount of hydronephrosis between the 2 groups. However, ureteral dilatation was significantly more pronounced in the control group than in the Uriprene group. The novel stent was biocompatible on histological evaluation and it led to significantly less urinary tract infections than in controls. CONCLUSIONS: The novel Uriprene stents provided drainage similar to that of regular stents and they were completely degraded by 10 weeks. Moreover, these stents resulted in less ureteral dilatation and fewer positive urine cultures. Biocompatibility was good and human trials will be forthcoming.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".