Urethral duplication type influences on the complications rate and number of surgical procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urethral duplication is rare. Characterized by the presence of two urethral channels. This anomaly presents a great variety of clinical findings that depend on the type of duplication that often is associated with other anomalies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We report thirteen boys with urethral duplication managed in our institution between 1988-2015. Clinical findings, associated anomalies, treatment of urethral duplication and our results are described. Patients were classified according to Effmann classification. RESULTS: Mean patient's age was 38.3±34.7 months (3-136 months). Mean follow-up was 7.7±3.4 years (3y8m-14y2m). Type II A2 was the most common pattern (8/13 patients, 61.5%), followed by type IA (3/13 patients, 23%) and IIA1 (2/13 patients, 15.3%). The most frequent clinical manifestations were urinary tract infections (UTI) observed in 11/13 patients (84.6%) and anal urinary leakage, found in 7/13 patients (53.8%). Associated anomalies were found in 9/13 patients (69.2%). Required surgeries were 3.53±2.84 procedures per patient. Considering groups: Type IIA2 4.25±3.28, type IIA1 4±1.41 and type IA 1.33±0.57 needed procedures per patient. Complications rate were 0% for type IA, 50% for type IIA1 and 75% for type IIA2. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with incomplete duplication (type I A or I B) can totally be asymptomatic, with no need of surgical correction. Type IIA2 is the most complex form of duplication to correct and multiple procedures might be required because of the very hypoplastic orthotopic dorsal urethral tissue. Surgical treatment should be individualized and parents should be advised on complications and need of multiple surgeries according to urethral duplication type.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".