Comparative outcome analysis of pediatric kidney transplant in posterior urethral valves children with or without pretransplant Mitrofanoff procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary diversion using catheterizable channel among posterior urethral valve (PUV) patients may help to alleviate the functional concerns of the bladder on the allograft. Herein, we review our series of PUV patients undergoing renal transplants at a single institution to determine outcomes between those with and without pretransplant Mitrofanoff. METHODS: PUV cases in our transplant database from 2000 to 2017 were identified. Data collected included clinical demographics, presentation of PUV, bladder function, implementation of dialysis and donor type. Post-transplant variables included graft function, and bladder function including incontinence and UTI development. Comparison between with vs without pretransplant Mitrofanoff patient groups was performed using Fisher's exact and t test analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 22 cases were analyzed. The majority (77%) had a prenatal diagnosis of PUV, and 23% had a symptomatic presentation. Pretransplant Mitrofanoffs were performed in 40.9% of cases. The overall age at transplant was 10 ± 5 years. Five percent experienced post-transplant incontinence and 23% UTIs. No difference between groups was noted in variables including age at transplant, the timing of PUV diagnosis. Mitrofanoff group patients had more symptomatic febrile UTIs than those without Mitrofanoff (67% vs 15%; P = .03); however, there was no difference in post-transplant UTI development. Furthermore, the Mitrofanoff group seems to have later onset of dialysis or need for transplant (age at the start of dialysis 36 ± 56 vs 156 ± 25 months, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients with early PUV diagnoses who develop symptomatic UTI may benefit from early creation of a Mitrofanoff cathetherizable channel, which is associated with delayed ESRD progression and need for dialysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".