1841 DOES THE TYPE OF SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPTER MATTER: A MATCHED COMPARISON OF AN ELECTROHYDRAULIC VS. AN ELECTROMAGNETIC LITHOTRIPTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ...
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) | 0.000 | 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".