MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604436283 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.08.113

Incidence and Predictors of Complications due to Urethral Stricture in Patients Awaiting Urethroplasty

2017· article· en· W2604436283 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Hoy, David Chapman, Nicholas Dean, Keith Rourke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrethroplastyMedicineUrethral strictureSurgeryIncidence (geometry)ComplicationUrethraUrinary retentionUnivariate analysisPelvic fractureEtiologyUrinary systemGeneral surgeryInternal medicineMultivariate analysisPelvis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We examined the incidence and predictors of complications due to urethral stricture in patients awaiting urethroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who underwent urethroplasty from 2009 to 2013. The primary outcome was complications, defined as any unplanned interaction with the health care system due to urethral stricture during the period between the decision to perform surgery and urethroplasty. RESULTS: A total of 276 patients were identified for analysis. Median stricture length was 4.0 cm and 67.4% of strictures were in the bulbar urethra. The most common stricture etiologies were idiopathic in 47.8% of cases and traumatic in 15.9%. Overall 15.9% of patients presented with a complication with a median time to complication of 43 days. Median surgical wait time was 151 days. Complications included urinary tract infections in 56.8% of patients, acute urinary retention in 20.5%, genitourinary pain in 5.8% and catheter related issues in 15.9%. Univariate analysis suggested that catheter dependent status, number of prior endoscopic treatments, a hypospadias and/or trauma etiology, and prior urethroplasty were potential significant predictors of complications. Multivariate analysis yielded only catheter dependent status (HR 5.2, 95% CI 2.4-11.3, p <0.0001) and prior failed urethroplasty (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3, p = 0.03) as significantly associated with complications. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge our study is the first to examine and quantify the morbidity of urethroplasty wait time. Approximately 16% of patients experienced a complication while awaiting urethroplasty. The optimal wait time should be less than 43 days. Patients with prior urethroplasty and catheters at the time of the surgical decision should be prioritized as they may be more likely to experience complications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207