The utility of buccal mucosa graft in salvage urethroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our results with buccal mucosa free grafts in salvage urethroplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review of autologous buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction at Winnipeg Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario between November 1992 and March 2000. RESULTS: Nine patients (median age 4 years) underwent such reconstruction. Seven of the nine patients had experienced failed previous attempts at hypospadias repair. Onlay grafts were used in all but one patient who required a tube graft. Urethrocutaneous fistula was the most common post-operative complication, affecting four of nine patients. Two patients developed urethral strictures and one a meatal stenosis. Satisfactory functional results were ultimately achieved in all patients. Harvest site complications were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Buccal mucosa is a readily available and useful source for urethral grafting material, but should only be used in patients with insufficient penile skin. Grafts may be used as onlays or tubes. It is our experience that despite precautionary measures, fistulae and strictures are common.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".