Colonic perforation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An 18-year experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the treatment of choice for large, extracorporeal lithotripsy failure stones and those in the inferior calyx. Despite the development of new techniques and the increasing experience in recent decades, complications may still occur. Colonic perforation is one of the most dangerous and rare complications of PCNL, which may lead to peritonitis and sepsis. We present our 18-year experience on the diagnosis and management of colonic perforation during PCNL. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 5260 PCNL procedures performed between May1995 and August 2013. Preoperative and operative factors, such as age, sex, history of previous ipsilateral stone intervention, stone side, stone location, site of skin puncture and punctured calyx, were reviewed in patients with colonic injury. RESULTS: Colonic perforation was found in 11 patients (5 males and 6 females) and the mean age was 40.4 ± 22.2 years (range: 4 to 71). All injuries were retroperitoneal. The left side was affected in 5 patients and the right side was injured in 6 cases. Conservative management was the treatment planned for all patients. It included withdrawal of the nephrostomy tube outside the kidney to the colon as a percutaneous colostomy, insertion of a double-J ureteral stent, intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics, bowel rest and total parenteral nutrition. Under this conservative management, complete healing of the colon was achieved in all patients. CONCLUSION: Early diagnosis and conservative management of colonic perforation can minimize patient morbidity and mortality and result in excellent healing of the fistulous tract without any serious complications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".