Shock Wave Lithotripsy Correlates With Stone Density on Preoperative Computerized Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We reviewed our experience with the Dornier Doli S lithotriptor to address 2 questions. 1) What is the stone-free rate? 2) Can a stone-free outcome be predicted by preoperative computerized tomography? MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 76 consecutive patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for solitary urinary calculi 5 to 20 mm in diameter were studied retrospectively. Pretreatment noncontrast computerized tomography was reviewed to determine Hounsfield density. The shock wave lithotripsy outcome was determined at 12 weeks on imaging and categorized as 1) stone free, 2) any residual fragments or 3) stone unchanged. RESULTS: Of the patients 28 (37%) were stone free, 11 (14%) had residual fragments and 37 (49%) had stones that remained unchanged on computerized tomography after a single treatment with shock wave lithotripsy using a Dornier Doli S. Stones of patients rendered stone free had a lower median density compared to stones in patients with residual fragments and unchanged stones (684 vs 1,034 and 920 HU, respectively, p = 0.04). The stone-free rate for stones less than 1,000 HU was 46% vs 17% for stones 1,000 HU or greater (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The combined stone-free and fragmentation rate was 51%, lower than in other published reports. In patients with calculi greater than 1,000 HU shock wave lithotripsy achieved a stone-free rate of only 17%. Patients should be informed of the likelihood of treatment failure or need for auxiliary procedures if the Doli S lithotriptor is used, particularly for stones greater than 1,000 HU.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".