Efficacy of using Zaontz urethral stent in hypospadias repair by the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale: A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The developments in hypospadias surgical techniques and materials are intended to improve surgery outcomes and patient comfort. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of the Zaontz urethral stent (ZUS) (Cook Medical) on patient comfort and surgical success rates in children undergoing hypospadias surgery. METHODS: A feeding tube was used to repair 46 cases of primary distal hypospadias, and ZUS (6F, 8F, and 10F in diameter) was used to repair to 31 cases of primary distal hypospadias between December 2009 and June 2011 in our clinic. ZUS was compared with the feeding tube in terms of surgical success rates and patient comfort in assessments made during postoperative periods. RESULTS: The patients with ZUS were followed with a stent for seven days postoperatively, as were the patients with the feeding tube. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of fistula formation (p>0.05). Patient comfort was evaluated by the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale on the first and third postoperative days, and a statistically significant difference was observed in favour of ZUS on the third postoperative day (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a feeding tube in hypospadias repair, ZUS does not make any contribution to the urinary fistula rates. However, ZUS may have an advantage in terms of patient comfort in the postoperative followup. On the other hand, the small number of patients and the high price of the ZUS were the most important limitations. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to assess efficacy and cost.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".