MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794537596 · doi:10.1002/lsm.22822

Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy damage rates for lower pole renal stones by laser fiber type

2018· article· en· W2794537596 on OpenAlexaff
Connor M. Forbes, Joel M.H. Teichman

Bibliographic record

VenueLasers in Surgery and Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaser lithotripsyLithotripsyMedicineUreteroscopySurgeryLaserFiber laserFiberOpticsMaterials scienceComposite materialUreterPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Laser lithotripsy, often used during ureteronephroscopy (URNS), requires the Ho:YAG optical fiber transmit energy via total internal reflection (TIR). In critical lower pole deflections, energy may refract into the cladding causing fiber failure and scope damage. New optical fiber technology aims to have increased tolerance for high degrees of flexion. We compared two brands of laser fibers with sub-300 micron cores (Sureflex, Boston Flexiva) to determine failure rates and scope repair costs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study comparing these two fibers for patients at a single academic institution who underwent flexible URNS with laser lithotripsy was performed from September 2013 to October 2015. Preoperative imaging was evaluated for stone burden and location. Intraoperative variables were collected, including energy use, lower pole lasering, laser fiber malfunction, and scope damage. The primary outcome was scope damage caused by laser fiber malfunction. Secondary outcome was scope repair costs. Fisher's exact test and two tailed t-tests were used. RESULTS: Of 223 subjects, 143 met inclusion criteria, and 8 had laser fiber failure. All failures occurred with the Sureflex fiber (8 of 63, 13%) vs the Boston Flexiva fiber (0 of 80, 0%) (P < 0.01). Malfunctions occurred in 8 of 79 lower pole stone applications versus 0 of 64 non-lower pole stone laser applications (P < 0.01). No other risk factor was different between fiber cohorts, except energy setting. Scope repair cost averaged $9155 CDN, yielding an average repair cost per case of $1144 CDN for the Sureflex versus $0 for the Boston fiber (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both optical fibers perform well in non-lower pole locations. However, the challenge for laser fibers in lower pole URNS is to maintain TIR. Fiber failure reflects an inability to maintain reflection and is not based on energy used or stone burden. The Boston Flexiva laser fiber has fewer failures, resulting in $0 repair cost per case, compared to the Sureflex fiber in URNS with an average repair cost of $1144 CDN per case. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:798-801, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLasers in Surgery and MedicineSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207