A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is considered a standard treatment for patients with upper-tract stones that are less than 10 mm in diameter, whereas stones that are larger than 20 mm are best managed by percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The management of stones between these sizes remains controversial. Our purpose was to review our contemporary series of SWL, ureteroscopy (URS), and PCNL outcomes for intermediate-sized upper tract calculi (100-300 mm(2)). Patients and Methods: Analysis was restricted to those patients who were treated for a renal calculus that measured between 100 and 300 mm(2) during a 4-year span. Demographic, stone, patient, treatment, and follow-up data were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Results: A total of 137 patients were referred with nonstaghorn calculi with an area between 100 and 300 mm(2). Fifty-three (38.7%) patients were treated with SWL, while 41 (29.9%) and 43 (31.4%) underwent ureteroscopy and PCNL, respectively. Mean stone area was higher in the PCNL group (P < 0.001), whereas stone density was higher for patients undergoing SWL (P = 0.002). Single treatment success rates were better for PCNL at 95.3%,vs 87.8% for ureteroscopy and 60.4% for SWL, P < 0.001. When allowing for two SWL treatments, the success rate improved to 79.2%, thus equalizing the success of the three treatment modalities (P = 0.66). Auxiliary treatments were more common after SWL (42.3%; P < 0.01). Conclusions: For intermediate-sized upper-tract stones, when allowing for up to two SWL treatments, there was no significant difference between treatment modalities. Thus, SWL is a reasonably successful treatment alternative for patients who are not fit for a general anesthetic or who prefer SWL over competing treatments, provided they accept a potentially higher number of treatments.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".