Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children with subureteral dextranomer/hyaluronic acid injection: a single-centre, 7-year experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goals of medical intervention in patients with vesicoureteral reflux are to allow normal renal growth, prevent infections and pyelonephritis, and prevent renal failure. We present our experience with endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children by subureteral dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer injection. METHODS: Under cystoscopic guidance, dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer underneath the intravesical portion of the ureter in a subureteral or submucosal location was injected in patients undergoing endoscopic correction of vesicoureteral reflux. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients (120 boys and 162 girls) underwent the procedure. There were 396 refluxed ureters altogether. The mean age of patients was 4.9 years. The mean overall follow-up period was 44 months. Among the 396 ureters treated, 76% were cured with a single injection. A second and third injection raised the cure rate to 93% and 94%, respectively. Twenty-two (6%) ureters failed all 3 injections, and were converted to open surgery. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux can be recommended as a first-line therapy for most cases of vesicoureteral reflux, because of the short hospital stay, absence of complications and the high success rate.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".