The CROES Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: The Influence of Body Mass Index on Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In addition to more commonly forming stones, obese patients present a number of challenges when undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. We evaluated percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes in 3,709 patients stratified by body mass index. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective database administered by CROES (Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society) captured data on 5,803 patients treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy between November 2007 and December 2009. Patients with known solitary kidney, previous percutaneous nephrolithotomy and congenital abnormalities were excluded from analysis. For statistical analysis patients were categorized as normal weight--body mass index 18.5 to 25 kg/m(2), overweight--25 to 30, obese--30 to 40 and super obese--greater than 40. RESULTS: During the study period 5,803 patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy, of whom 3,709 met the inclusion criteria. As expected, obesity was associated with significantly higher rates of comorbid conditions and anticoagulant use (p < 0.001). Operative time was significantly longer in obese patients and use of a balloon device for tract dilation was more common (each p < 0.001). The stone-free rate decreased with obesity (p = 0.009), corresponding to a significantly higher re-treatment rate in this group (p < 0.001). No difference was seen in length of stay or the transfusion rate. No significant difference was seen in the overall complication rate among the 4 groups (p = 0.707). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be done safely in obese patients, although with a longer operative time, an inferior stone-free rate and a higher re-intervention rate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".