Amplatz versus Balloon for Tract Dilation in Ultrasonographically Guided Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare balloon with Amplatz for tract dilation in totally ultrasonographically guided PCNL (UPCN). METHODS: We randomized 66 patients candidate for sonographically guided PCNL in the flank position in two study groups. In the first group, we used single step Amplatz dilation (AG) technique in which the 28- or 30-French Amplatz dilator is used for tract dilation. In the other group, we dilated the tract using balloon dilator (BG). We compared procedure time, success rate of dilation, and postoperative clinical outcomes and cost between two groups. RESULTS: The rate of short dilation was higher in the Amplatz group (57.6%) compared with Balloon group (36.4%) (P=0.08). When using Amplatz for lower pole access, short dilation occurred in 81% of cases compared with 44% in the BG (P=0.02). Overall operation was longer in the AG (80±21 versus 65±20 minutes P=0.02). Stone free rate was 87.9% in the AG compared with 72.7% in the BG (p=0.12). Mean cost of the surgery was 603±85 USD and 718±78 USD in the AG and BG, respectively (P=0.0001). Hemoglobin drop, transfusion rate, renal function alteration, duration of hospitalization, and complication rate based on Clavien classification were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: AG showed a higher rate of short dilation compared with BG; consequently, overall operating time was significantly longer in the AG whereas BG was significantly more expensive than AG. Bleeding and other complications were similar in two groups. We observed an advantage for balloon dilation over Amplatz when approaching the lower pole calyxes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".