Defining Success after Anterior Urethroplasty: An Argument for a Universal Definition and Surveillance Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A successful urethroplasty has been defined in different ways across studies. This variety in the literature makes it difficult to compare success rates and techniques across studies. We aim to evaluate the success of anterior urethroplasty based on different definitions of success in a single cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from a multi-institutional, prospectively maintained database. We included men undergoing first-time, single-stage, anterior urethroplasty between 2006 and 2020. Exclusion criteria included lack of followup, hypospadias, extended meatotomy, perineal urethrostomy, posterior urethroplasty and staged repairs. We compared 5 different ways to define a "failed" urethroplasty: 1) stricture retreatment, 2) anatomical recurrence on cystoscopy, 3) peak flow rate <15 ml/second, 4) weak stream on questionnaire and 5) failure by any of these measures. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for each of the definitions. We also compared outcomes by stricture length, location and etiology. RESULTS: A total of 712 men met inclusion criteria, including completion of all types of followup. The 1- and 5-year estimated probabilities of success were "retreatment," 94% and 75%; "cystoscopy," 88% and 71%; "uroflow," 84% and 58%; "questionnaire," 67% and 37%; and "any failure," 57% and 23%. This pattern was inconsistent across stricture length, location and etiology. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated probability of success after first-time, anterior urethroplasty is highly dependent on the way success is defined. The variability in definitions in the literature has limited our ability to compare urethroplasty outcomes across studies.
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) | 0.000 | 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".