Treatment of upper urinary tract stones with flexible ureteroscopy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This single-centre, retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) combined with holmium laser lithotripsy in treating children with upper urinary tract stones. METHODS: From June 2014 to October 2015, a total of 100 children (74 boys and 26 girls) with upper urinary tract stones were treated using FURS. A 4.7 Fr double-J stent was placed two weeks before operation. Patients were considered stone-free when the absence of residual fragments was observed on imaging studies. The preoperative, operative, and postoperative data of the patients were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 100 pediatric patients with a mean age of 3.51±1.82 years underwent 131 FURS and holmium laser lithotripsy. Mean stone diameter was 1.49±0.92 cm. Average operation time was 30.8 minutes (range 15-60). The laser power was controlled between 18 and 32 W, and the energy maintained between 0.6 and 0.8 J at any time; laser frequency was controlled between 30 and 40 Hz. Complications were observed in 69 (69.0 %) patients and classified according to the Clavien system. Postoperative hematuria (Clavien I) occurred in 64 (64.0 %) patients. Postoperative urinary tract infection with fever (Clavien II) was observed in 8/113 (7.1%) patients. No ureteral perforation and mucosa avulsion occurred. The overall stone-free rate of single operation was 89/100 (89%). Stone diameter and staghorn calculi were significantly associated with stone-free rate. CONCLUSIONS: FURS and holmium laser lithotripsy is effective and safe in treating children with upper urinary tract stones.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".