Comparison of Peditrol <sup>®</sup> Irrigation Device and Common Methods of Irrigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Peditrol is a novel hands-free irrigation device that delivers a bolus of irrigant through the ureteroscope when the foot pedal is deployed. The purpose of this study was to compare the flow and pressures created by the Peditrol with those of commonly used methods of irrigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Flows through a flexible 6.9F Olympus ureteroscope (F-URS) and a 7.5F semirigid ACMI ureteroscope (S-URS) were measured in duplicate with the working channel empty and with a 2.2F Nitinol basket or a laser fiber in the working port. Irrigant flow was pressurized by gravity drainage at 100 cm H(2)O (GI), pressurized irrigant bag at 300 cm H(2)O (PI), handheld 60-cc syringe (HS), and the Peditrol. A 20-gauge angiocatheter was placed through the parenchyma into the renal pelvis of an ex-vivo cadaveric porcine kidney and attached to a pressure transducer. Pressures were measured in triplicate using the same irrigation techniques. RESULTS: With a basket or 200-microm laser fiber in the working port of the F-URS, Peditrol mean flows were superior to those of PI (3.3 and 6.3 times, respectively; P < 0.001) but similar to those of HS (0.7 to 1.1 times). All irrigation types resulted in intrarenal pressures greater than gravity irrigation (P < 0.05). The Peditrol demonstrated intrapelvic pressures <40 cm H(2)O when used with a 12/14F ureteral access sheath (AS). Without an AS, the intrapelvic pressure reached 92 cm H(2)O, similar to the pressures reached with the S-URS under various irrigation conditions (84-287 cm H(2)O) and comparable to the HS method through the F-URS (97 cm H(2)O). CONCLUSIONS: The Peditrol irrigation device generates superior flow through an F-URS compared with GI or PI, particularly with an instrument in the working port. Intrarenal pressures when used with an F-URS and AS are low. When an AS is not used, the intrarenal pressure is similar to or lower than pressures obtained using an S-URS with different irrigation modalities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".