A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial to Compare Shock Wave Frequencies of 60 and 120 Shocks per Minute for Upper Ureteral Stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent evidence demonstrates that decreasing shock wave frequency from the previous standard of 120 to 60 shocks per minute results in improved fragmentation of stones located within the renal collecting system. We report the first randomized trial to our knowledge to examine the effect of a slower shock wave frequency for shock wave lithotripsy on stones located in the proximal ureter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 163 patients with a previously untreated radiopaque calculus in the upper ureter measuring at least 5 mm underwent stratified block randomization according to stone size, and shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute. Stone-free status at 3 months was confirmed with noncontrast computerized tomography or a plain abdominal x-ray and ultrasound study. RESULTS: Of the patients 77 were randomized to 60 shocks per minute and 86 were randomized to 120 shocks per minute. The groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index and initial stone area. At 3 months the 60 shocks per minute group had a higher overall stone-free rate (64.9% vs 48.8%, p = 0.039). Significantly fewer shocks were administered to patients treated at 60 shocks per minute (mean 2,680 vs 2,940, p <0.001). However, mean treatment times were longer (44.3 vs 24.5 minutes, p <0.001). Patients treated with 60 shocks per minute required fewer auxiliary procedures (29.9% vs 45.4%) (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing the rate of shock wave administration from 120 to 60 shocks per minute results in improved stone-free rates. A slower treatment rate of proximal ureteral stones reduces the need for additional shock wave lithotripsy or more invasive treatments to render patients stone-free, without any increase in morbidity, and with an acceptable increase in treatment 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".