Study comparing the applicability of dorsal lumbotomy in older children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Dismembered pyeloplasty through dorsal lumbotomy to correct ureteropelvic junction obstruction is mainly successfully performed in children under 5 years old for technical reasons. We compared children who underwent dorsal lumbotomy by age group (<5 vs. ≥5 years old) to determine if the surgical success and long-term results were comparable.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 134 children undergoing a pyeloplasty. Group 1 consisted of children <5 years old (n = 90) and Group 2 consisted of children ≥5 years old. Patients’ characteristics, as well as hospital stay, narcotic use, radiologic follow-up and success rate, were compared. Success was defined by absence of symptoms and ≥50% reduction in renal pelvis anteroposterior diameter and/or scintigraphic normalization of the drainage T1/2 when obtained. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the groups.Results: Mean age (years) and weight (kg) at surgery for Groups 1 and 2 were 1/8 kg and 11/35 kg, respectively. Mean operative time was 98 minutes versus 120 minutes, respectively; mean hospital stay was 2.5 days for both groups and analgesia requirement was 50% higher in Group 2. A Pippi-Salle stent was used in 90% (n = 120) of cases. Mean follow-up was 26 months and the success rate was 89% and 90% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively.Conclusion: Our study showed comparable success rates. We can infer that, as a technique, dismembered pyeloplasty is effective and safe in the younger and older children.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".