A survey of Canadian renal transplant surgeons: Use of ureteric stents and technique of the ureteroneocystotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The role of ureteric stenting in renal transplant has been well-demonstrated. The goal of this survey was to determine the utilization of ureteric stents by Canadian transplant surgeons, and how the ureteroneocystotomy and followup is performed. METHODS: An online survey was sent to the 40 surgeon members of the Canadian Society of Transplantation. The primary outcome was the rate of ureteric stent use at the time of renal transplantation. The secondary outcomes were the ureteric stent dwell time, use and type of prophylactic antibiotics, and the use of routine post-transplant ultrasonography. RESULTS: All respondents (25) used ureteric stent routinely and 92% remove the stent between four and six weeks postoperatively. Prophylactic antibiotics were used 64% of the time for ureteric stent removal. The majority of surgeons do not routinely perform a post-stent removal ultrasound. Fifty-six percent of respondents perform a refluxing anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteric stents are routinely used in renal transplant in Canada. Areas for improvement and topics of debate identified from this survey are the need for peri-stent removal antibiotics, the role of post-stent removal ultrasound, the duration of stent dwell time, and the need for a non-refluxing ureteroneocystotomy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".