VARIATION IN CLINICAL OUTCOME FOLLOWING SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We measure and compare operator specific success rates of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) performed by 12 urologists in 1 unit to determine interoperator variation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1, 1994 to September 1, 1997 a total of 5,769 renal and ureteral stones received 9,607 ESWL treatments by 15 urologists with a Dornier MFL 5000 lithotriptor. The 3-month followup data are available for 4,409 stones. Outcome measures consisted of patient demographics, stone characteristics, technical details of lithotripsy, and stone-free and success rates by treating urologists. RESULTS: Treatment results were analyzed for 12 urologists (surgeons A to L) who treated more than 100 stones each, totaling 4,244 with followup information available. Mean stone-free and success rates were 50.6% and 72.3%, respectively. Surgeon A had significantly higher stone-free and success rates of 56.2% and 76.7%, respectively (p<0.05), with treatment results from 877 stones, which was a significantly higher number than others (p<0.05). Significant differences existed in mean number of shocks delivered among urologists (p = 0.0001), with surgeons A and J delivering the highest mean numbers (2,317 and 2,801, respectively). There was no difference in treatment duration (p = 0.75) but variation existed among urologists in terms of mean maximum treatment voltage (p = 0.0001). Mean fluoroscopy time at 4.1 minutes was higher for surgeon A than others (p<0.05). Mean complication rate following ESWL was 4.9% with no difference among urologists (p = 0.175). Re-treatment was required in 21.7% of cases and surgeon A had the lowest rate (15.9%, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated clinically and statistically significant intra-institutional differences in success rates following ESWL. The best results were obtained by the urologist who treated the greatest number of patients, used a high number of shocks and had the longest fluoroscopy time. Accurate targeting is crucial when using a lithotriptor, such as the Dornier MFL 5000, with a narrow focal zone of 6.5 mm. in diameter. Other centers should be encouraged to develop similar programs of outcome analysis in an attempt to improve performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".