Repair of rectourethral fistulas with transperineal buccal mucosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous closure of rectourethral fistulas (RUF), often seen after radical prostatectomy (RP), is rare, and most cases require surgical repair. In recent years, the perineal approach has become the preferred technique. This study aimed to retrospectively present the surgical and functional results of transperineal buccal mucosal graft repair of RUFs developed after RP. METHODS: Twenty-four patients who developed RUF secondary to RP between January 2016 and May 2023 were included in the study. Our study excluded patients who had previous unsuccessful fistula treatment and received radiotherapy (RT). Transperineal RUF repair was performed with buccal mucosa graft in all patients and patient data were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: The mean surgery time was 15.3 (10-22) months after RP. The mean operation time was 110 minutes. The mean hospital stay was seven days. In 22 (91.6%) patients, the suprapubic catheter was removed in the third week. The mean followup period was 28 (4-76) months. The procedure was successful in all patients. No recurrence was observed in any patient during followup. The postoperative satisfaction of the patients was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Repair of RUFs secondary to RP with transperineal buccal mucosa is a surgical technique with a low complication and high success rates. This technique can be a good alternative to interposition procedures in non-complex fistulas.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".