Should a Refluxing Internal Diversion Be Considered a Temporizing Procedure? Extended Follow-up and Outcomes After Side-to-Side Ureterovesicostomy for Primary Obstructive Megaureter in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We describe long-term outcomes, including UTIs and need for reimplantation, after ureterovesicostomy (UV) as a lasting surgical procedure for children with primary obstructive megaureter (POM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children referred to our institution between 2016 and 2023 who underwent refluxing UV were analyzed. POM was defined as hydroureteronephrosis with distal ureteral dilatation > 7 mm and a negative workup for other etiologies of hydronephrosis. We assessed for surgical outcomes, complications, rate of UTI, and improvement in upper tract dilatation. Statistical analyses assessed for change in hydronephrosis metrics over follow-up. RESULTS: Among 183 patients diagnosed with POM, 47 (24%) underwent UV. Median age of presentation, surgery, and follow-up was 2, 9, and 43 months, respectively. A total of 7 patients developed 30-day complications: Clavien-Dindo grade 1 in 2 (transient urinary retention) and grade 2 in 5 (UTIs). During monitoring 14 (30%) developed UTIs and 7 (15%) required ureteral reimplant or UV takedown. After surgery there was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with high-grade hydronephrosis, anteroposterior renal pelvis diameter, and maximum ureteral dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: Refluxing UV is a safe alternative to cutaneous diversion in POM. Most patients had improvement in upper tract dilatation with an acceptable short-term complication rate and need for reoperation (in comparison to routine later reimplantation). Our experience suggests that monitoring alone after UV is feasible, and that selective subsequent reconstruction is a reasonable strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".