MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996429342 · doi:10.1089/end.2004.18.739

Fluid Absorption during Ureterorenoscopy

2004· article· en· W1996429342 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Cybulski, R. John D’A. Honey, Kenneth T. Pace

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureterorenoscopy (URS) is a common minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic modality for ureteral and renal pathology. Fluid absorption during routine URS has not been studied prospectively, despite the fact that fluid absorption during other endoscopic urologic procedures can be substantial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During URS in 15 male and 8 female patients with a mean age of 54 years (range 19-81 years), volumetric balance was performed by measuring all fluids instilled into the urinary tract (irrigation fluid and contrast medium) and fluids collected from the urinary tract (irrigation fluid, contrast medium, and urine output) and by estimating urine output from creatinine concentration in the urine and in the fluids collected from the urinary tract. Fluids from the urinary tract were assessed by measuring drainage fluid and the preoperative and postoperative weights of the drapes and bedsheets. Of the procedures, 11 were right-sided and 12 were left-sided. The indications for URS were urolithiasis (N = 18) and diagnosis (hematuria in 2, ureteral or renal filling defect in 2, flank pain and hydronephrosis in 1). RESULTS: The mean total operative time was 55 minutes (range 20-95 minutes), and the mean URS time was 37 minutes (range 8-83 minutes). The mean volume of irrigation fluid used was 2531 mL (range 552-5580 mL). The mean estimated urine output during the procedure was 62 mL (range 7-201 mL). The mean estimated systemic fluid absorption during URS was 54 mL (range 4-137 mL). There were two intraoperative complications (ureteral perforations) but no postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Routine URS is associated with minimal systemic fluid absorption, even if ureteral perforation occurs. Estimated absorption of as much as 137 mL was seen; however, evaporative losses and unaccounted-for losses of fluid likely account for a substantial portion of this fluid discrepancy. This result suggests that irrigation with fluids other than normal saline, such as sterile water, during URS is likely safe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207