Risk Factors for Perinephric Hematoma Formation After Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Matched Case-Control Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of and evaluate the potential risk of a symptomatic perinephric hematoma (PNH) after shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) with the Storz Modulith SLX-F2 device. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient and treatment-related data from 6172 SWL treatments for proximal ureteral and kidney stones were collected prospectively from April 2006 to August 2010. Patients in whom signs or symptoms of a PNH developed after SWL were investigated with imaging studies. Each patient identified with a PNH was matched with four controls using sex, age (±5 years), shockwave rate, energy and number, and no SWL within the previous 6 months as the matching variables. The baseline characteristics of the 21 cases and 84 controls were compared using the Student t test. The independent variables of hypertension (intraoperative value >140/90 mm Hg), anticoagulant/antiplatelet drugs, obesity (body mass index ≥30), and diabetes were compared using a conditional logistic regression analysis. The dependent variable was hematoma. RESULTS: A PNH developed after SWL with the Storz Modulith SLX-F2 device in 21 (0.34%) adult patients (19 men, 2 women) with a mean age of 55.2 years. Significant risk factors identified included intraoperative hypertension (hazard ratio [HR] 3.302, 1.066-10.230, P=0.0384) and anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications (HR 4.198, 1.103-15.984, P=0.0355). Diabetes (P=0.1043) and obesity (P=0.1021) were not associated with PNH. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical PNH occurred in less than 1% of our population. This is consistent with reports from earlier generation devices. Risk factors identified for hematoma formation were intraoperative hypertension and the use of anticoagulant/antiplatelet drugs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".