Laparoscopic pyeloplasty practice patterns in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is a condition characterized by partial or complete obstruction of urine transport from the renal pelvis to the ureter and can present with intermittent flank pain, recurrent urinary tract infections, renal stones, or renal dysfunction. While historically, open pyeloplasty was the gold standard for surgical management, laparoscopic methods to repair UPJO have largely taken over as the preferred approach for adolescent and adult patients. Despite near universal adoption of laparoscopic pyeloplasty among Canadian urologists, it remains a technically complex procedure and considerable variability exists in the procedural steps performed. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to all urologists registered with the Canadian Urology Association (CUA). Participants were asked to describe their training background, comfort level with laparoscopic pyeloplasty, positioning preferences, procedural steps, and stenting practices. RESULTS: A total of 100 board-certified urologists completed our survey, with approximately half from a community setting and half with academic affiliations (56% and 43%, respectively). The vast majority (98%) reported preferring the Anderson-Hynes (dismembered) pyeloplasty technique. Other technical steps of the procedure were variable among respondents, with no discernable pattern. Those who felt most comfortable with the procedure tended to perform a larger volume of laparoscopic pyeloplasties annually or work at higher-volume institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty remains a technically challenging procedure that many Canadian urologists are uncomfortable performing. With this publication, we hope to create discussion among urologists and to reveal procedural tips that may improve comfort in tackling these complex cases.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".