Urothelial-based reconstructive surgery for upper- and mid-ureteral defects: Long-term results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> Ureteral strictures can result in obstructive nephropathy and renal function deterioration. Surgical management of ureteral defects, especially in the proximal- and mid-ureter, is particularly challenging. Our purpose was to analyze the long-term outcomes of urothelial-based reconstructive surgery for upper- and mid-ureteral defects.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> We conducted a retrospective analysis of a single tertiary centre’s database, including 149 patients treated for ureteral defects between 2001 and 2011. Thirty-one patients (21%) underwent complex urothelial-based surgical repairs for upper- and mid-ureter defects. Patients’ median age was 61 years. The mean length of the ureteral strictures was 2.5 cm, located in upper-, mid-ureter, or in between in 19 (61%), 10 (32%), and two (6%) patients, respectively. All patients were treated with a primary urothelial-based repair. Median followup time was 26 months. The primary outcome of the study was the long-term preservation of renal function and lack of clinical obstruction. The secondary endpoint of the study was the assessment of the intra- and postoperative complication rates.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Most of the lesions were benign (22, 71%), while nine strictures (29%) were malignant. Seven patients (23%) suffered from postoperative complications, five of which were infectious. The median pre- and postoperative calculated glomerular filtration rates were 66 ml/min/1.72m2 and 64ml/min/1.72m2, respectively. Success rate was 84%, defined as lack of need for re-operation or kidney drainage at the last followup.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Upper- and mid-ureteral defects present a complex pathology necessitating experienced reconstructive surgical skills. Our data suggest good long-term results for primary urothelialbased reconstructions for these pathologies.</p>
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".