Minilaparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty in Children Less Than 1 Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare minilaparoscopic (MLS) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in children <1 year in terms of intra- and perioperative outcomes and esthetic results. Materials and Methods: Patients <1 year of age, with prenatal hydronephrosis, who underwent Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for monolateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) at our center from January 2016 to August 2017 were enrolled in the study. Outcomes evaluated were as follows: operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain anterior-posterior pelvic diameter (APD) reduction. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was utilized to evaluate esthetic results. Mean follow-up was 26.5 months. Results: Eighteen patients (11M, 7F) of mean age 8.1 months (range 4–12) and mean weight 8.5 kg (range 7–10) underwent Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in the study period. Nine of eighteen underwent OP, and 9/18 underwent MLS. Mean operative time was 167 minutes for MLS versus 153 minutes for OP ( P = .14). Mean hospital stay was 3.9 days for MLS versus 5.3 days for OP ( P = .11). Mean APD reduction was 13.6 mm for MLS and 16.5 mm for OP procedures ( P = .63). Mean VSS score was 1.3 for VLS versus 3.4 for OP ( P = .04). Conclusions: MLS pyeloplasty is feasible and safe, and reported equivalent results as open procedure for management of UPJO also in toddlers and infants. We found that the only significant difference between the two approaches in children <1 year was represented by the esthetic outcome in the short follow-up period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".