Practical Comparison of Four Nitinol Stone Baskets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of stone baskets for repositioning of stones or removal of fragment in conjunction with ureterorenoscopy has become widespread. We tested the performance of the ACMI Sur-Catch NT, Bard Dimension, Boston Scientific Zero-tip, and Cook N-Circle in a pig kidney model of flexible ureterorenoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Opening characteristics of the basket were measured with mechanical calipers at 1-mm increments and compared with published reports to ensure the tested baskets were representative. Pig kidneys were placed in a basin and the ureters secured with a suture to a weight for stability. Flexible renoscopy was performed using a 16F flexible cystonephroscope. An 8-mm calculus was placed in the lower pole. Using each of four designs, the time necessary to grasp the stone, time to release the stone, and total time to move a stone from the lower-pole calix to the upper-pole were recorded. Total time experiments were repeated six times with each basket by three surgeons for a total of 18 attempts, and catch-and-release experiments were repeated six times by four surgeons for a total of 24 attempts per basket. RESULTS: The Sur-Catch was significantly slower for catch and release (P < 0.001) and total time; P < 0.05) compared with all other baskets. There were no differences between the other baskets in either catch, release, or total times. There was no difference between surgeons (P < 0.0634) or between attempts one through six (P = 0.538). CONCLUSIONS: Baskets with added complexity of the wire configurations (Sur-Catch) or a deflectable-wire mechanism (Dimension) offer no advantages and may slow capture and release of stones.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".