MP79-13 ANALYSIS OF URETERAL STENTS ENCRUSTATION AND BIOFILM FORMATION AFTER 3-WEEK DWELL TIME: RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED MULTICENTRE CLINICAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SILICONE HYDROCOATED (IMAJIN® HYDRO) VERSUS PERCUFLEX <sup>™</sup> PLUS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy VI (MP79)1 Apr 2019MP79-13 ANALYSIS OF URETERAL STENTS ENCRUSTATION AND BIOFILM FORMATION AFTER 3-WEEK DWELL TIME: RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED MULTICENTRE CLINICAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SILICONE HYDROCOATED (IMAJIN® HYDRO) VERSUS PERCUFLEX™ PLUS Oliver Wiseman, Julien Letendre, Jonathan Cloutier, Michel Daudon, Francois Kleinclauss, Steeve Doizi, Olivier Traxer, and Oliver Wiseman* Oliver WisemanOliver Wiseman More articles by this author , Julien LetendreJulien Letendre More articles by this author , Jonathan CloutierJonathan Cloutier More articles by this author , Michel DaudonMichel Daudon More articles by this author , Francois KleinclaussFrancois Kleinclauss More articles by this author , Steeve DoiziSteeve Doizi More articles by this author , Olivier TraxerOlivier Traxer More articles by this author , and Oliver Wiseman*Oliver Wiseman* More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000557366.75390.dcAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Silicone was one of the first materials to be used for ureteral stents. Importantly, silicone has been shown to be highly biocompatible and less prone to encrustation than polyurethane in a large series of removed ureteral stents. Since encrustation remains a significant concern when stents are implanted, we investigated these properties of silicone through a randomized multicenter study. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, prospective, randomized, single blind, comparative study of silicone hydrocoated ureteral stents versus PercuflexTM Plus, in patients treated by F-URS for a kidney stone. The studies had ethical committee approval in the respective hospitals. Primary endpoint was USSQ pain score after 3-week dwell. Ureteral stent encrustation and biofilm formation at removal was evaluated through a scoring scale (Table 1). Comparison was performed using ANOVA. RESULTS: 119 stents were available after removal for analysis, 56 in the silicone and 63 in the Percuflex TM Plus group. Mean dwell duration was 21.8 days for silicone, 22.1 days for PercuflexTM Plus. Biofilm and mineral encrustations were evaluated through optical microscopy of inner and outer surfaces of tips, angles and along the stents body. There was significantly more mineral encrustation and biofilm (Table 2) on PercuflexTM Plus on both renal and vesical tips and angle surfaces compared to silicone. Mean global biofilm and mineral encrustation were also more significant on PercuflexTM Plus stents. Five silicone stents had no encrustation at all, compared to none stent for PercuflexTM Plus. Two silicone stents had neither biofilm nor encrustation (none for PercuflexTM Plus). CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre randomized study evidences that silicone hydrocoated stents are less encrusted than PercuflexTM Plus after 3-week dwell time and confirms the low encrustation potential of silicone. Source of Funding: This study was supported by Coloplast. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Montreal, Canada; Quebec, Canada; Paris, France; Besancon, France; Paris, France; Cambridge, United Kingdom© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e1156-e1156 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Oliver Wiseman More articles by this author Julien Letendre More articles by this author Jonathan Cloutier More articles by this author Michel Daudon More articles by this author Francois Kleinclauss More articles by this author Steeve Doizi More articles by this author Olivier Traxer More articles by this author Oliver Wiseman* More articles by this author Expand All 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 | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 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 ».