MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W86507898

Posterior urethral valves in Eastern Ontario - a 30 year perspective.

2004· article· en· W86507898 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeff Warren, John Pike, Michael P. Leonard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive uropathyPresentation (obstetrics)Radiological weaponCohortPosterior urethral valveRetrospective cohort studyUltrasoundHydronephrosisPediatricsMedical recordSurgeryRadiologyUrinary systemPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Posterior urethral valves (PUV) are the most common cause of male pediatric obstructive uropathy. Recent advancements in antenatal ultrasound and endoscopy have altered the presentation and management of PUV. Herein we describe the presentation, management and outcome of PUV patients in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec over the last 3 decades. A comparison analysis of those cases identified pre and post widespread utilization of antenatal ultrasound diagnosis was performed to discern the clinical evolution of PUV with respect to long-term outcome. METHODS: Retrospective systematic chart review of all PUV cases diagnosed and treated at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario over the last 3 decades. Charts were reviewed for initial presentation, method of diagnosis, radiological and clinical findings at diagnosis, initial management, and long-term clinical outcome. The evolution of PUV was interpreted by dividing the cohort into two groups chronologically delineated by the first case detected by antenatal ultrasound in the mid-1980s. These pre- and post- antenatal ultrasound eras were compared with respect to the parameters outlined above. RESULTS: Fifty-three cases were reviewed - 21 prior to widespread antenatal ultrasound screening in the mid-1980s and 32 after. There were 13/53 cases (32%) discovered by prenatal ultrasound evidence of hydronephrosis, none prior to 1985. VCUG confirmed the diagnosis in all cases. Mean age at presentation in the remaining post-natally diagnosed patients was 33 months. Of the cases diagnosed post-natally, ultrasound investigation complemented VCUG findings in 19/40 cases (47%), whereas IVP was utilized in 14/40 (35%). IVP has not been utilized for this purpose since 1987. Overall, 26/53 cases (49%) had documented VUR - 16/26 (62%) bilateral; 42/53 (79%) had hydronephrosis on ultrasound - 37/42 (88%) bilateral; 26/53 (49%) had radiological evidence of renal parenchymal damage at diagnosis; 41/53 (77%) cases had a thickened bladder wall on ultrasound at diagnosis, and 23/53 (43%) had at least one bladder diverticulum. Techniques of initial management comprised: valve ablation 32/53, vesicostomy 11/53, and high diversion 10/53. Clinically significant bladder dysfunction was found in 31% of cases, ranging from bladder instability to myogenic failure. Globally impaired renal function, as determined by significantly elevated serum creatinine levels, reduced GFR, or both, was found in 12/53 (23%). 6/53 (11%) progressed to ESRD, of which 4 received transplants. Two patients died - one from complications related to renal failure. Of the six cases of myogenic bladder failure identified, three (50%) had concurrently significant renal impairment. Average length of follow-up was 8.3 years, varying between 1 month and 18 years. CONCLUSIONS: The presentation of PUV is variable, and currently antenatal detection is the most common mode. Despite this, it still does not make up the majority of diagnoses. Complete radiological work up should include abdominal and pelvic U/S in conjunction with VCUG. Concurrent VUR in 50% of boys mandates suppressive antibiotic use. Primary valve ablation remains the gold standard for treatment of PUV, with vesicostomy reserved for selected cases. Long-term bladder and renal dysfunction is common in this population, and mandates long-term urological and nephrological follow-up.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207