SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY AT 60 OR 120 SHOCKS PER MINUTE: A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The rate of shock wave administration is a factor in the per shock efficiency of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Experimental evidence suggests that decreasing shock wave frequency from 120 shocks per minute results in improved stone fragmentation. To our knowledge this study is the first to examine the effect of decreased shock wave frequency in patients with renal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated radiopaque stones in the renal collecting system were randomized to SWL at 60 or 120 shocks per minute. They were followed at 2 weeks and 3 months. The primary outcome was the success rate, defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic fragments less than 5 mm 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were randomized, including 111 to 60 shocks per minute and 109 to 120 shocks per minute. The 2 groups were comparable in regard to age, sex, body mass index, stent status and initial stone area. The success rate was higher for 60 shocks per minute (75% vs 61%, p = 0.027). Patients with larger stones (stone area 100 mm or greater) experienced a greater benefit with treatment at 60 shocks per minute. The success rate was 71% for 60 shocks per minute vs 32% (p = 0.002) and the stone-free rate was 60% vs 28% (p = 0.015). Repeat SWL was required in 32% of patients treated with 120 shocks per minute vs 18% (p = 0.018). Fewer shocks were required with 60 shocks per minute (2,423 vs 2,906, p <0.001) but treatment time was longer (40.6 vs 24.2 minutes, p <0.001). There was a trend toward fewer complications with 60 shocks per minute (p = 0.079). CONCLUSIONS: SWL treatment at 60 shocks per minute yields better outcomes than at 120 shocks per minute, particularly for stones 100 mm or greater, 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".