Ante-grade ureteric stenting, retrospective experience in managing 89 patients: Indications, complications and outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Over the past three decades there has been a remarkable increase in interventional uro-radiological procedures in the developed countries. Long-term drainage of the obstructed upper urinary tract may be achieved by percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteric stenting. Previously most ureteric stents were inserted by the retrograde approach at cystoscopy and these procedures have required the use of general or spinal anesthesia. With the development of a nephrostomy service in most hospitals throughout the world ante-grade ureteric stenting procedures are being carried out by trained interventional radiologists in the radiology department without the need for a general or spinal anesthesia. Aims/materials and methods : To review the records of all 89 patients who had insertion of ante-grade ureteric stents for ureteric obstruction between February 2010 and January 2013 in order to document the following: The causes of obstruction; The side (left, right or both sides) and site of the ureteric obstruction (upper, mid or lower ureter); The sex and ages of the patients; Success or failure of the procedure; Complications of procedure; The management of the complications. Results : Ante-grade ureteric stenting was successful in 105 out of 121 procedures (86.7%) which 89 patients underwent. Out of 105 successful ante-grade stenting procedures carried out, 103 were successful at first attempt, another two were successful at second attempt and one successful at a third attempt, making it a total of 105 successful procedures. There were minimal complications. Conclusion and recommendation: Ante-grade ureteric stenting is a safe procedure with minimal complications. Every radiology unit should have a trained interventional radiologist capable of performing ante-grade ureteric stenting.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".