1946 IMPACT OF UROLOGY RESIDENTS ON THE FLUOROSCOPY TIME USED DURING URETEROSCOPY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: New Technology/SWL, Ureteroscopic or Percutaneous Stone Removal IV1 Apr 20121946 IMPACT OF UROLOGY RESIDENTS ON THE FLUOROSCOPY TIME USED DURING URETEROSCOPY Mohamed Elkoushy and Sero Andonian Mohamed ElkoushyMohamed Elkoushy Montreal, Canada and Sero AndonianSero Andonian Montreal, Canada View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2104AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Endourological procedures resulted in dramatic rise in radiation exposure for both the patient and surgeon. Therefore, monitoring and awareness of fluoroscopic dose are critical. The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of urology residents on fluoroscopy time (FT) during ureteroscopy (URS). METHODS A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed for consecutive patients undergoing URS by urology residents between July 2009 and February 2011. Residents in the Post-Graduate Year 4 (PGY-4) performed these cases under the direct supervision of a single endourologist. Standard fluoroscopic unit using 30 frames per second was used in these cases. Patient and stone characteristics together with operative data were compared among residents using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS Seven residents (A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) performed 106 URS with a median (range) of 16 (9-20) procedures per resident. Although a trend of decreasing mean FT over successive residents was observed, there were significant differences among the residents in their use of fluoroscopy (p=0.001) (Figure 1). The mean FT (95% CI) for residents A through G were 200 (128-272), 104 (65-144), 98 (72-124), 117 (58-175), 91 (52-131), 127 (89-166) and 64 (36-91) seconds, respectively. There were significant differences among residents in the use of access sheath (p=0.001) and pre-operative stenting (p=0.03). However, there were no significant differences regarding patients (age, sex) and stone characteristics (size, laterality, location, multiplicity) (p>0.05). Likewise, operative time, type of ureteroscopes and balloon dilation were all comparable among residents (p>0.05). FT (p<0.001), preoperative stenting (0.006) and use of access sheath (0.03) maintained their significance in the multivariate analysis after correction for all confounders. CONCLUSIONS Urology residents vary significantly in their use of fluoroscopy during URS. Whether these differences are intrinsic to residents themselves or due to peri-operative factors remain to be clarified. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e785-e786 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mohamed Elkoushy Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Sero Andonian Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".