Flexible ureteroscopic renal stone extraction during laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in patients with large upper ureteral stone and small renal stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We describe laparoscopic ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction using a stone basket under flexible ureteroscopy. We describe its efficacy through a laparoscopic port and a ureterotomy site in patients with large upper ureteral stone and small renal stones. METHODS: Between January 2009 and February 2012, we performed laparoscopic ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction using a stone basket under flexible ureteroscopy in 11 patients who had upper ureteral and renal stones. The retroperitoneal approaches were used in all patients using 3-4 trocars. RESULTS: All procedures were performed successfully without significant complications. Mean operative time was 78.5 minutes (range: 52-114 minutes). The mean size of ureteral stone was 19.91 mm (range: 15-25 mm). In addition, 25 renal stones (mean size 7.48 mm, range: 2-12 mm) were removed from 11 patients. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.5 days (range: 2-6 days). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction using a stone basket under flexible ureteroscopy can be considered one of treatment modalities for patients with large upper ureteral stones accompanied by renal stones who are indicated in laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".