A Survey Regarding Preference in the Management of Bilateral Stone Disease and a Comparison of Clavien Complication Rates in Bilateral vs Unilateral Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To discuss complications of simultaneous bilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SB-PCNL) when compared with unilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy and survey surgeon preference in bilateral stone disease management. Patients and Methods A database of all participating percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) patients who underwent treatment at Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital within a 10-year period from 2006 to 2015 by a single surgeon (JL) was utilized. Perioperative data, as well as complications, defined according to the Clavien grading system, were recorded. A survey of members of the Endourological Society was performed regarding surgical management in the setting of bilateral stone disease. Results A total of 563 patients were identified over the study period with 129 undergoing SB-PCNL. Overall, SB-PCNL patients had a longer procedure (176.9 vs 115.6 minutes, P .0001), were more likely to undergo a secondary procedure (73% vs 44, P .001), and had a longer hospital stay (3.2 vs 2.3 days, P .001). Notably, there were no differences in the number or the severity of complications between the 2 groups. A total of 153 endourologists completed the survey. Of these endourologists, 58 (38%) performed bilateral PCNL under anesthesia. The top reasons for electing not to perform bilateral PCNLs included the duration of bilateral procedures (53%), bilateral renal injury (48%), and rare performance of bilateral surgery (35%). Conclusion Although the procedure length was longer in the SB-PCNL group, there were similar rates of complications and severity between unilateral PCNL and SB-PCNL. A majority of endourologists surveyed do not perform bilateral PCNL but would perform bilateral ureteroscopy with the duration of the procedure and concern for bilateral renal injury representing the most common reasons.
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) | 0.001 | 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".