Malignancy in horseshoe kidneys: review and discussion of surgical implications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Horseshoe kidney is one of the most common congenital anomalies of renal structure. Not infrequently, surgical management of both benign and malignant disorders is required in patients with horseshoe kidney due to the susceptibility to certain conditions. The literature suggests a greater proclivity to certain renal tumors with this anomaly. We present three cases of malignancy in horseshoe kidneys. The unique technical challenges presented by these cases and the surgical approaches are discussed. METHODS: Three patients with tumors involving horseshoe kidneys are reviewed and their management discussed. RESULTS: Two patients were found to have renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and one had transitional carcinoma (TCC). Computed tomography (CT) and angiography were used in the work-up and preoperative planning of these cases. One patient with RCC received pre-operative renal artery embolization. Partial nephrectomy was performed in each patient with an aim at early vascular control of the tumors, identification of the collecting systems and ureters, as well as ensuring a 1 cm surgical margin. No patient required dialysis post-operatively. One patient died in the early post-operative period of a myocardial infarction; one patient developed brain metastases 18 months post-operatively, received palliative radiation and is alive 42 months after surgery; the other patient was free of disease for approximately 36 months but recently developed osseous metastases to her pelvis. CONCLUSIONS: Techniques developed for partial nephrectomy may be used in the treatment of tumors in horseshoe kidneys. Survival is related to the grade and stage of disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".