Urodynamic Testing—Is it a Useful Tool in the Management of Children with Cutaneous Stigmata of Occult Spinal Dysraphism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lumbar cutaneous stigmata in infants may be associated with occult spinal dysraphism and often prompt urological evaluation, including urodynamic testing. We examined whether urodynamic testing is useful in this population by evaluating the association between abnormal urodynamic test results and need for tethered cord release. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed a historical cohort of children with cutaneous stigmata of spinal dysraphism referred to our hospital from 2002 to 2010. We evaluated patient characteristics, imaging, urodynamic studies and neurosurgical interventions. We analyzed the association between urodynamic testing and imaging studies, and neurosurgical intervention. RESULTS: We retrospectively studied 123 patients with a median age of 11 months (IQR 6.5-15.5), including 112 nontoilet trained infants (91%). Of the patients 19% (23 of 123) had abnormal urodynamics, 85% (99 of 116) had abnormal spinal magnetic resonance imaging and 96% (98 of 102) had an abnormal spinal ultrasound. Tethered cord release was performed in 40 of 121 patients (33%). A significant association was found between abnormal urodynamics and neurosurgical intervention (p = 0.002). Abnormal spinal magnetic resonance imaging was also significantly associated with operative intervention (p = 0.05). Ultrasound of the spine (p = 1.0), ultrasound of the abdomen/pelvis (p = 0.68), history of urinary tract infections (p = 1.0) and constipation (p = 0.67) were not associated with intervention for tethered cord release. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal urodynamic studies in infants with cutaneous stigmata of spinal dysraphism are significantly associated with the requirement for neurosurgical intervention. Urodynamics are an important diagnostic modality aiding the neurosurgeon in determining the need for surgical intervention in this population.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".