Removal of Asymptomatic Ipsilateral Renal Stones Following Rigid Ureteroscopy for Ureteral Stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and outcome of flexible ureteroscopic removal of small (<1-cm) asymptomatic renal stone(s) following rigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten female and nineteen male patients underwent rigid ureteroscopy and holmium lasertripsy for removal of ureteral stone(s). All had asymptomatic renal stone(s) on the same side, which were then removed using flexible ureteroscopy. The renal stones were either removed intact with a tipless Nitinol basket or fragmented with the laser to small pieces (<2 mm), with basket removal of larger fragments. The number and size of stones, total operative time, added time needed for flexible ureteroscopy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Follow-up at 1 month included a plain abdominal film and renal ultrasonography or noncontrast CT scan. RESULTS: Fifty-six renal stones with a mean size of 5.7 mm were treated. Fourteen patients had stones on the right side, and 15 had stones on the left. The mean total operative time was 56.5 minutes, with a mean added time of 16.7 minutes for flexible ureteroscopy. Stones were removed intact in 18 patients and fragmented in 8 patients, resulting in an immediate success rate of 90%. There were three failures. One-month follow-up confirmed all patients were either stone-free or had residual fragments <2 mm in diameter, with no new-onset hydronephrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of small asymptomatic renal stones at the time of ureteroscopy for ureteral stones appears safe and effective and requires little additional operative time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".