Is transurethral incision better than upper pole partial nephrectomy for management of duplex system ureterocoele diagnosed in the first year of life?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To compare the outcomes of transurethral incision (TUI) and upper pole partial nephrectomy (PN) in patients with duplex system ureterocoele (DSU).Patients and methods:We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients who presented with DSU in the first-year of life and were managed with either TUI or PN. Patients’ demographics, ultrasonography examinations, voiding cystourethrogram studies, and dimercaptosuccinic acid scans were reviewed. Also, the postoperative vesico-ureteric reflux status and febrile urinary tract infection occurrences, and subsequent surgical interventions were identified. The outcomes for the DSU location (intravesical vs extravesical) were compared.Results:Between January 1995 and September 2015, 44 patients underwent TUI (31 patients) or PN (13). The TUI patients presented at a median age of 1.1 months and were followed-up for a median of 47.4 months, whilst those who underwent PN presented at a median age of 1.06 months and were followed-up for a median of 44.23 months. Postoperatively, in the TUI group, four of 15 units had improved renal function and 11 units had stable function. In the PN group, five of nine units had stable renal function and the remaining four had worsened function (P = 0.019). Furthermore, 15 of the 31 patients (48%) in the TUI group required second interventions compared with one of 13 patients in the PN group (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference between the outcomes of intravesical and extravesical DSUs after TUI and PN.Conclusion:This study shows significant renal function preservation with TUI compared to PN. However, secondary surgical interventions were higher with TUI.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".