Endoscopic dilatation/incision of primary obstructive megaureter. A systematic review. On behalf of the EAU paediatric urology guidelines panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Historically, ureteral reimplantation (UR) has been the gold standard for treatment of primary obstructive megaureter (POM) with declining renal function, worsening obstruction, or recurrent urinary tract infections. In infants, open surgery with reimplantation of a grossly dilated ureter into a small bladder, can be technically challenging with significant morbidity. Therefore, less invasive endoscopic management such as dilatation or incision of the ureter-vesical junction, has emerged as an alternative to reimplantation during the last decades. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effectivity, safety, and potential benefits of endoscopic treatment (dilatation with or without balloon or incision) of POM in comparison to UR. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized comparative studies (NRSs), and single-arm case series including a minimum of 20 participants and a mean follow-up more than 12 months were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Of 504 articles identified, 8 articles including 338 patients were eligible for inclusion (0 RCTs, 1 NRSs, and 7 case series). Age at time of surgery was minimum 15 days to a maximum of 192 months. Indications for endoscopic treatment (ET) included patients with loss of split renal function (>10%) and worsening of hydroureteronephrosis. The studies analysed reported a success rate ranging from 35% to 97%. Success was defined as stabilization of differential renal function without further procedures. A post-operative complication rate of 23-60% was reported (mostly transient haematuria, urinary tract infections and stent migration or intolerance). In 14% of the cases salvage UR following initial ET, was performed due to relapse of symptomatic POM. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatment for persistent or progressive POM in children is a minimally invasive alternative to UR with a long-term modest success rate. Additionally, it can be performed within a wide age span, with equal success rate and complication rates.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".