Intraureteral lidocaine for ureteral stent symptoms post-ureteroscopy: A randomized, phase 2, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ureteral stent and ureteral manipulation-related pain is a significant complication for patients undergoing ureteroscopy. Herein, we report a phase 2, randomized trial to assess efficacy of direct instillation of intraureteral lidocaine in reducing postoperative pain and ureteral stent symptoms. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blinded trial of patients undergoing elective ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi. Patients were randomized to direct instillation of 2% lidocaine plus bicarbonate, or to normal saline as control. The primary outcome of interest was early postoperative pain scores. Patients completed10-point visual analog pain scale at one-hour, two-hour, four-hour, 24-hours, four- and seven-day time points. Other outcome measurements collected included a medication diary and voiding questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were randomized in the study. Mean flank pain scores at one hour were 2.2 (±2.9) vs.1.9 (±2.4) in the intervention and placebo group, respectively (p=0.84). There was no significant difference at any time point between the intervention and placebo groups in patient-reported pain scores. Patients reported lower dysuria scores at all time points in the lidocaine group, however, none reached statistical significance. There was no difference in complication rates or adverse effects between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, phase 2 study, direct instillation of lidocaine into the ureter did not appear to significantly improve pain or voiding symptoms following stented ureteroscopy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".