Outcomes of revision surgery for difficult to catheterize continent channels in a multi-institutional cohort of adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to describe the strategies of surgical revision for catheterizable channel obstruction and their outcomes, including restenosis and new channel incontinence. METHODS: We retrospectively queried the charts of adults who underwent catheterizable channel revision or replacement from 2000-2014 for stomal stenosis, channel obstruction, or difficulty with catheterization at the Universities of Minnesota, Michigan, and Utah. The primary endpoint was channel patency as measured by freedom from repeat surgical intervention. Secondary endpoints included post-revision incontinence and complication rates. Revision surgeries were classified by strategy into "above fascia," "below fascia," and "channel replacement" groupings. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients who underwent 68 repairs (age 18-82 years old; mean 45) were identified who met our inclusion criteria. Channel patency was achieved in 66% at a median 19 months post-revision for all repair types. There was no difference in patency by the type of channel being revised, but there was based on revision technique, with channel replacement and above the fascia repairs being more successful (p=0.046). Channel incontinence occurred in 40% and was moderate to severe in 12%. The type of channel being revised was strongly associated (p=0.003) with any postoperative channel incontinence. Surgical complications occurred in 29% of all revision procedures, although most were low-grade. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical revision of continent catheterizable channels for channel obstruction can be performed with acceptable rates of durable patency and incontinence; however, the surgeon needs to have experience in complex urinary diversion and familiarity with a variety of surgical revision strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".