1704 THE CLINICAL RESEARCH OFFICE OF THE ENDOUROLOGICAL SOCIETY PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY GLOBAL STUDY: OUTCOMES IN THE SUPER OBESE – A CASE CONTROL ANALYSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: New Technology/SWL, Ureteroscopic or Percutaneous Stone Removal II1 Apr 20121704 THE CLINICAL RESEARCH OFFICE OF THE ENDOUROLOGICAL SOCIETY PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY GLOBAL STUDY: OUTCOMES IN THE SUPER OBESE – A CASE CONTROL ANALYSIS Andrew Fuller, Hassan Razvi, John D. Denstedt, Linda Nott, Ad Hendrikx, Michael Luke, S.K. Pal, and Jean de la Rosette Andrew FullerAndrew Fuller London, Canada More articles by this author , Hassan RazviHassan Razvi London, Canada More articles by this author , John D. DenstedtJohn D. Denstedt London, Canada More articles by this author , Linda NottLinda Nott London, Canada More articles by this author , Ad HendrikxAd Hendrikx Eindhoven, Netherlands More articles by this author , Michael LukeMichael Luke Herlev, Denmark More articles by this author , S.K. PalS.K. Pal New Delhi, India More articles by this author , and Jean de la RosetteJean de la Rosette Amsterdam, Netherlands More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1641AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been demonstrated in obese individuals, however there remains little data considering the outcomes of PCNL in super obese patients (BMI≥40). Perioperative and stone-related outcomes were assessed following PCNL in this patient population. METHODS A prospective database administered by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) captured data from 5803 patients treated with PCNL between November 2007 and December 2009. A multidimensional match of 97 super obese patients with those of normal weight was created using propensity score matching. Student's T-test and Chi-square tests were used to assess for differences between the groups. RESULTS Ninety-seven patients with a BMI ≥40 were matched by stone characteristics with 97 patients of normal weight. The super obese population demonstrated higher rates of diabetes mellitus (43% vs 6%, p<0.001), cardiovascular disease (56% vs 18%, p<0.001) and anticoagulant use (23% vs 5%, p<0.001). Access was achieved more frequently by Radiologists in the super obese group (19% vs 6%, p=0.016). Mean operative duration was longer in the super obese group (112 ± 56 mins vs 86 ± 43.5 mins, p<0.001). Stone free rates were lower in the super obese group (66% vs 77%, p=0.071) with a resultant discrepancy in re-treatment rates (28% vs 12%, p=0.012). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay or transfusion rate. Super obese patients were significantly more likely to experience a post-operative complication (22% vs 6%, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS PCNL in super obese patients is associated with longer operative duration, inferior stone free rates, higher rates of re-intervention and increased risk of peri-operative complications. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e687-e688 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Andrew Fuller London, Canada More articles by this author Hassan Razvi London, Canada More articles by this author John D. Denstedt London, Canada More articles by this author Linda Nott London, Canada More articles by this author Ad Hendrikx Eindhoven, Netherlands More articles by this author Michael Luke Herlev, Denmark More articles by this author S.K. Pal New Delhi, India More articles by this author Jean de la Rosette Amsterdam, Netherlands 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 | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
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 ».