MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010523280 · doi:10.1089/end.2005.19.348

Using and Choosing a Nephrostomy Tube after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Large or Complex Stone Disease: A Treatment Strategy

2005· article· en· W2010523280 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous nephrolithotomyNephrostomySurgeryConcomitantPercutaneous nephrostomyUrologyPercutaneous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a well-accepted technique for removal of large or complex renal calculi. However, little attention has been paid to strategies for nephrostomy tube (NT) selection. We reviewed the reasons for selecting three types of NT after PCNL for large or complex stone disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 106 consecutive renal units undergoing PCNL for stone burdens >2 cm by a single surgeon (JEL) were reviewed. Noncontrast CT (NCCT) was carried out on postoperative day 1, and secondary procedures were performed if fragments remained. The NTs studied were 8.5F and 10F Cope loops (CP), 20F reentry Malecot catheters (REM), and 20F circle loops (CL). Patient demographics, access site and number, complications, and stone type were examined. "Stone free" was defined as a negative NCCT or negative second-look PCNL. RESULTS: A total of 134 accesses were created in 106 renal units: 35 upper, 7 mid, and 92 lower; however, only 111 NTs were placed: 85 CP (76.6%), 19 REM (17.1%), and 7 CL (6.3%). Sixteen accesses were performed tubeless; all but two were in the upper pole. All 16 of these renal units had a concomitant NT placed in the lower pole. Multiple sites were accessed in 21 patients; 7 of these patients had CL placed. Five of ten patients with spinal-cord injury had REM/CL placed. Nineteen REM were placed: 10 for drainage of infection, and 9 for difficult anatomy. All renal units were rendered stone free: 31.1% with a single procedure and 95.6% with one or two procedures. There were no difficulties with drainage or access for secondary PCNL regardless of the NT employed. Complications included two hydrothoraces, one arteriovenous fistula, and one ureteral perforation. Three of four renal units in patients requiring transfusions underwent bilateral PCNL, and at least one renal unit required multiple accesses. Of kidneys with infection stones, 57.1% required REM or CL; only 12.0% of nonstruvite stones necessitated REM or CL. CONCLUSIONS: All patients having PCNL done for complex stone disease should have an NT placed; however, small (8.5F-10F) CP suffice in most cases and can provide greater patient comfort. To minimize pleural morbidity, tubeless upper-pole access should be considered if the kidney is judged to be stone free at the conclusion of PCNL. Circle loops are useful when multiple accesses are necessary, whereas REM are appropriate if access is difficult, gross residual stone remains, or pain is not an issue (i.e., spinal-cord injury).

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.296 · 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