1704 THE CLINICAL RESEARCH OFFICE OF THE ENDOUROLOGICAL SOCIETY PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY GLOBAL STUDY: OUTCOMES IN THE SUPER OBESE – A CASE CONTROL ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: New Technology/SWL, Ureteroscopic or Percutaneous Stone Removal II1 Apr 20121704 THE CLINICAL RESEARCH OFFICE OF THE ENDOUROLOGICAL SOCIETY PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY GLOBAL STUDY: OUTCOMES IN THE SUPER OBESE – A CASE CONTROL ANALYSIS Andrew Fuller, Hassan Razvi, John D. Denstedt, Linda Nott, Ad Hendrikx, Michael Luke, S.K. Pal, and Jean de la Rosette Andrew FullerAndrew Fuller London, Canada More articles by this author , Hassan RazviHassan Razvi London, Canada More articles by this author , John D. DenstedtJohn D. Denstedt London, Canada More articles by this author , Linda NottLinda Nott London, Canada More articles by this author , Ad HendrikxAd Hendrikx Eindhoven, Netherlands More articles by this author , Michael LukeMichael Luke Herlev, Denmark More articles by this author , S.K. PalS.K. Pal New Delhi, India More articles by this author , and Jean de la RosetteJean de la Rosette Amsterdam, Netherlands More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1641AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been demonstrated in obese individuals, however there remains little data considering the outcomes of PCNL in super obese patients (BMI≥40). Perioperative and stone-related outcomes were assessed following PCNL in this patient population. METHODS A prospective database administered by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) captured data from 5803 patients treated with PCNL between November 2007 and December 2009. A multidimensional match of 97 super obese patients with those of normal weight was created using propensity score matching. Student's T-test and Chi-square tests were used to assess for differences between the groups. RESULTS Ninety-seven patients with a BMI ≥40 were matched by stone characteristics with 97 patients of normal weight. The super obese population demonstrated higher rates of diabetes mellitus (43% vs 6%, p<0.001), cardiovascular disease (56% vs 18%, p<0.001) and anticoagulant use (23% vs 5%, p<0.001). Access was achieved more frequently by Radiologists in the super obese group (19% vs 6%, p=0.016). Mean operative duration was longer in the super obese group (112 ± 56 mins vs 86 ± 43.5 mins, p<0.001). Stone free rates were lower in the super obese group (66% vs 77%, p=0.071) with a resultant discrepancy in re-treatment rates (28% vs 12%, p=0.012). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay or transfusion rate. Super obese patients were significantly more likely to experience a post-operative complication (22% vs 6%, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS PCNL in super obese patients is associated with longer operative duration, inferior stone free rates, higher rates of re-intervention and increased risk of peri-operative complications. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e687-e688 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Andrew Fuller London, Canada More articles by this author Hassan Razvi London, Canada More articles by this author John D. Denstedt London, Canada More articles by this author Linda Nott London, Canada More articles by this author Ad Hendrikx Eindhoven, Netherlands More articles by this author Michael Luke Herlev, Denmark More articles by this author S.K. Pal New Delhi, India More articles by this author Jean de la Rosette Amsterdam, Netherlands 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".