MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W76289482

Fixation of bilateral pelvic osteotomies with external fixator in exstrophy bladder complex.

2005· article· en· W76289482 on OpenAlexaff
Salman Riaz, Shahbaz Sarwar, Umar Masood

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiastasisSurgeryBladder exstrophyWound dehiscenceDehiscenceOrthopedic surgeryPubic symphysisFixation (population genetics)SymphysisPelvis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To present the early results of pelvic osteotomies performed for repair of exstrophy bladder. METHODS: Five cases of exstrophy bladder were treated with closure following bilateral iliac osteotomies. Three patients underwent closure of pubic symphysis diastasis by use of external fixator, one by screws and cerclage wires, and one by use of K-wires and suture. The patients were followed up by the pediatric urologist and orthopedic surgeon. RESULTS: All patients achieved a closure of diastasis and a tension free repair after the index surgery. The average follow-up was 3.6 years with range of 4 months to 6 years. All osteotomies healed within two months and had closure of the diastasis, except one which had a partial failure with loss of 50% correction. No patient had any wound dehiscence or breakdown of the bladder repair. Preoperative mean diastasis of symphysis pubis was 6 cm (range; 4.5 cm to 7 cm) and post operative mean diastasis was 3.5 cm with the range of 2.5 cm to 4 cm at 12 months follow up. All patients achieved urinary continence post operatively and were passing urine per-urethra with satisfactory urinary control as followed-up with the pediatric urologists. CONCLUSION: Bilateral iliac osteotomies and use of external fixator in our series was found to be helpful in achieving a tension free closure and preventing dehiscence of the repair.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207