1841 DOES THE TYPE OF SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPTER MATTER: A MATCHED COMPARISON OF AN ELECTROHYDRAULIC VS. AN ELECTROMAGNETIC LITHOTRIPTER
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: New Technology/SWL, Ureteroscopic or Percutaneous Stone Removal III1 Apr 20121841 DOES THE TYPE OF SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPTER MATTER: A MATCHED COMPARISON OF AN ELECTROHYDRAULIC VS. AN ELECTROMAGNETIC LITHOTRIPTER Michael Ordon, Daniela Ghiculete, R. John D'A. Honey, and Kenneth T. Pace Michael OrdonMichael Ordon Toronto, Canada , Daniela GhiculeteDaniela Ghiculete Toronto, Canada , R. John D'A. HoneyR. John D'A. Honey Toronto, Canada , and Kenneth T. PaceKenneth T. Pace Toronto, Canada View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1929AboutPDF Cite Export CitationSelect Citation formatNLMAMAIEEEACMAPAChicagoMLAHarvardTips on citation downloadDownload citationCopy citation ToolsAdd to favoritesTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (SWL) still represents the most commonly used treatment modality for the management of urinary tract calculi. Various technologies exist for shockwave generation including electrohydraulic, electromagnetic and piezoelectric. Since the introduction of the electrohydraulic based Dornier HM-3 lithotripter, newer lithotripters have been designed to minimize tissue trauma and pain. However, the effectiveness of these newer lithotripters at stone disintegration have been questioned. Several studies comparing electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters have shown mixed results. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new electromagnetic lithotripter compared to our previous electrohydraulic lithotripter. METHODS We compared 96 patients treated with the Philips Lithotron Ultra electrohydraulic lithotripter with 96 patients treated with the Storz Modulith SLX F2 electromagnetic lithotripter in a matched pair comparison. Patients were matched on stone area (mm2), location, and BMI. The outcome measured was stone free and successful fragmentation rates at 2 weeks and 3 months. Successful fragmentation was defined as being either stone free, having residual sand or an asymptomatic fragment <4mm on KUB x-ray. In all patients, SWL treatment was continued to a maximum of 3000 shocks or until there was clear fluoroscopic evidence of complete fragmentation. Matched pair analysis was performed using McNemar's test. We also compared the number of shocks administered between the matched pairs with the paired t-test. RESULTS The stone free rate at 2 weeks and 3 months between the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic cohorts were 43% vs. 30% and 54% vs. 49% respectively. Matched analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups for either stone free or successful fragmentation rate at 2 weeks and 3 months. There was also no significant difference in the number of shocks utilized between the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic cohorts. CONCLUSIONS In our matched comparison the Phillips Lithotron Ultra and Storz Modulith SLX F2 had equivalent stone free and successful fragmentation rates at 2 weeks and 3 months. Similarly, the two lithotripters demonstrated comparable efficiency of fragmentation with respect to number of shocks administered. As such, it appears that the Storz Modulith SLX F2 electromagnetic lithotripter has a similar effectiveness at stone disintegration as the electrohydraulic Philips Lithotron Ultra. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e744-e745 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Michael Ordon Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Daniela Ghiculete Toronto, Canada More articles by this author R. John D'A. Honey Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Kenneth T. Pace Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».