Uretero‐enteric stricture outcomes: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial comparing open versus robot‐assisted radical cystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the risk of uretero-enteric anastomotic stricture in patients randomised to open (ORC) or robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with extracorporeal urinary diversion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 118 patients randomised to RARC (n = 60) or ORC (n = 58) at a single, high-volume institution from March 2010 to April 2013. Urinary diversion was performed by experienced open surgeons. Stricture was defined as non-malignant obstruction on imaging, corroborated by clinical status, and requiring procedural intervention. The risk of stricture within 1 year was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In all, 58 and 60 patients were randomised to RARC and ORC, respectively. We identified five strictures, all in the ORC group. In patients with ≥1 year of follow-up, the increase in risk of stricture from open surgery was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 1.5%, 17%). Of the five strictures, three were managed endoscopically while two required open revision. There was no evidence that perioperative Grade 3-5 complications were associated with development of a stricture (P = 1) and no evidence of a difference in 24-month estimated glomerular filtration rate between arms (P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: In this study at a high-volume centre, RARC with extracorporeal urinary diversion achieved excellent ureteric anastomotic outcomes. Purported increased risk of stricture is not a reason to avoid RARC. Future research should examine the impact of different surgical techniques and operator experience on the risk of stricture, especially as more intracorporeal diversions are performed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".