Simultaneous saline irrigation during retrograde rigid ureteroscopic lasertripsy for the prevention of proximal calculus migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we analyze the clinical efficacy of a simultaneous saline irrigation method in treating upper-mid ureteral stone migration and evaluate its effectiveness during ureteroscopic lasertripsy. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 78 patients with a total of 95 upper-mid ureteral stones, which were treated with holmium:YAG lasertripsy. These patients were randomized into 2 groups. In Group 1 (39 cases with 44 ureteral stones), conventional ureteroscopic lasertripsy was performed. In Group 2, (39 cases with 51 ureteral stones), the simultaneous saline irrigation method was used during lasertripsy. There was no significant difference between the groups with regards to stone site, size or state of the upper urinary tract by spiral computed tomography or excretory urography. Data were analyzed regarding stone migration, lengths of time, and ureteral clearing for various stages of each procedure. RESULTS: One patient in Group 2 (2%) experienced upward stone migration, while this occurred in 8 patients in Group 1 (20%). The operative time in Group 1 ranged from 35 to 55 minutes (mean: 44.8 ± 5.3), while in Group 2 it ranged from 40 to 69 minutes (mean: 50.4±3). There was no significant different in the operative times between the two groups (p < 0.05). Ureteral perforation, urinoma and urosepsis were not seen in both groups. CONCLUSION: The simultaneous saline irrigation method demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over conventional methods. The operation can be performed persistently under clear vision, and since the stones cannot move upward, fragmented portions are easily flushed out. Our data suggest that this method is simple, safe and effective in preventing proximal stone migration during ureteroscopic lasertripsy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".