A Multicenter Comparison of the Safety and Effectiveness of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Obese and Normal Weight Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Surgical treatment of kidney stones in an obese patient (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m(2)) remains challenging as shockwave lithotripsy may not be an option due to weight limitations. We sought to determine the effectiveness of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in obese patients compared to nonobese controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 2004 to 2007 were retrospectively analyzed providing a group of 292 patients (163 obese, 76 overweight, 53 normal) who underwent ureteroscopic procedures for urolithiasis at four centers in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: The percentage of obese patients requiring flexible ureteroscopy (URS) (79%) was higher than in the other groups (P<0.0001). Flexible URS was associated with a lower stone-free rate (SFR) on multivariate analysis (P=0.034). There was no difference in SFRs of patients who required a ureteral access sheath, basket extraction, or received a postoperative stent. Complication rates did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: SFRs using ureteroscopic lithotripsy in obese and overweight populations are the same as in the normal weight patients. A flexible ureteroscope was associated with a decreased SFR, but this likely due to a more proximal stone location in these patients. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy is an effective and safe technique to treat urolithiasis in the overweight/obese patient.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".