MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083347884 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.481

Urethrocutaneous fistula after use of Tegress bulking agent: Case report and review of the literature

2013· article· en· W2083347884 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anudeep Mukkamala, Jerilyn M. Latini, Anne P. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystoscopyProstatectomyUrinary incontinenceImplantSurgeryFistulaUrinary FistulaCystectomyStress incontinenceProstate cancerUrethroplastyUrologyTransurethral resection of the prostateRadical retropubic prostatectomyUrethraProstateUrinary systemCancerBladder cancerAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a case of a 68-year-old man who presented with a urethrocutaneous fistula after off-label use of Tegress (C. R. Bard, Inc., Murray Hill, NJ) Urethral Implant for post-prostatectomy incontinence. He was treated for prostate cancer with an open radical retropubic prostatectomy and adjuvant external beam radiation therapy. He was treated unsuccessfully for stress incontinence with a Tegress Urethral Implant and presented to our clinic initially with extrusion of the material urethrally. Four years later he re-presented with a large bullous skin lesion on his suprapubic area. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and retrograde urethral cystogram demonstrated a urethrocutaneous fistula. Subsequent cystoscopy revealed the calcified extruded material in the same location as the site of Tegress injection. The patient underwent simple cystectomy with ileal diversion. He recovered well postoperatively. This appears to be the first reported case of urethrocutaneous fistula after use of a Tegress Urethral Implant for post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207