Transperineal approach to complex rectourinary fistulae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to present our experience and outcomes in patients with complex rectourethral fistulae (RUF) treated using the transperineal approach with gracilis muscle flap interposition. Complex RUF was defined as having prior radiation, failed repair attempts, and large size (>2 cm). METHODS: A retrospective review identified 10 patients presenting with complex RUF between July 2009 and November 2013. Three were excluded due to large fistula defects managed with urinary diversion. Seven patients met inclusion criteria and underwent reconstruction. RESULTS: Six of 7 patients had prostate cancer, and one patient had colon cancer treated with low anterior resection with adjuvant radiation. The primary modality of prostate cancer therapy was brachytherapy (n=3), external beam radiotherapy (n=2) and radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) (n=1). Three patients had salvage cancer therapy, including RRP (n=1), cystoprostatectomy with ileal conduit (n=1), and cryotherapy (n=1). One patient developed RUF post-primary RRP without radiation. Mean fistula size was 2.8cm (2-4 cm). No fistulas recurred at mean follow-up 11.4 months (6-20 months). Three patients have had colostomy reversal, one is pending reversal and three have permanent colostomies. Five patients have stress urinary incontinence, with two managed with one to four pads per day, one managed with a condom catheter, and two waiting for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). One patient developed a perineal wound infection and one developed a pulmonary embolus treated medically. CONCLUSION: Complex RUF defects are effectively treated with transperineal repair using gracilis muscle interposition. The procedure has low morbidity and high success. Concomitant stress incontinence and bladder outlet contracture are prevalent in this population and may require ongoing management.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".