Subureteric injection for the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in transplant kidneys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Treatment of de novo vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) into the transplanted kidney constitutes a clinical challenge. Herein, we present our data on patients who underwent endoscopic subureteric injection for the treatment of VUR following renal transplantation (RT) in our center. METHODS: The patients who underwent endoscopic subureteric injection for VUR into the transplanted kidney after RT in our department between 2008 and 2023 were reviewed retrospectively. Indication for subureteric injection, age, gender, laterality, number of injections, amount of material used, renal failure etiology, auxiliary procedures, and treatment success were noted. All interventions were performed by pediatric urologists who also perform RT. RESULTS: During a median followup of 27.5 months (4-160), 22 patients (17 women, 77.2%) and 23 transplanted ureters (13 right, eight left, one bilateral) were treated with subureteric injections. In all patients, the indications for subureteric injection were recurrent febrile urinary tract infection (UTI), and the grades of VUR varied between 1-4. Patients received a median of 1.65 cc (0.7-2.7) dextranomer-hyaluronic acid copolymer. In total, 10 RTs (eight from living donors, two from cadaveric donors) were performed in another center, whereas 13 RTs were carried out in our center (eight from cadaveric donors and five from living donors). Among the patients who were transplanted in our center, the rate of subureteric injections due to de novo symptomatic VUR after RT was 2.2% (13/593 patients). After subureteric injections, five patients required a second injection due to the recurrence of VUR. Ureteroureterostomy (to the native ureter) was performed in two patients who had further UTIs after the second endoscopic treatment. Eventually, 19/21 patients (90.4%) benefited clinically from the endoscopic treatment and none of the patients underwent re-do ureteroneocystostomy. It is noteworthy that the etiology of renal failure was VUR nephropathy in seven (31.8%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Subureteric injection provides a high clinical success for the treatment of de novo VUR after RT.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".