MP79-13 ANALYSIS OF URETERAL STENTS ENCRUSTATION AND BIOFILM FORMATION AFTER 3-WEEK DWELL TIME: RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED MULTICENTRE CLINICAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SILICONE HYDROCOATED (IMAJIN® HYDRO) VERSUS PERCUFLEX <sup>™</sup> PLUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy VI (MP79)1 Apr 2019MP79-13 ANALYSIS OF URETERAL STENTS ENCRUSTATION AND BIOFILM FORMATION AFTER 3-WEEK DWELL TIME: RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED MULTICENTRE CLINICAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SILICONE HYDROCOATED (IMAJIN® HYDRO) VERSUS PERCUFLEX™ PLUS Oliver Wiseman, Julien Letendre, Jonathan Cloutier, Michel Daudon, Francois Kleinclauss, Steeve Doizi, Olivier Traxer, and Oliver Wiseman* Oliver WisemanOliver Wiseman More articles by this author , Julien LetendreJulien Letendre More articles by this author , Jonathan CloutierJonathan Cloutier More articles by this author , Michel DaudonMichel Daudon More articles by this author , Francois KleinclaussFrancois Kleinclauss More articles by this author , Steeve DoiziSteeve Doizi More articles by this author , Olivier TraxerOlivier Traxer More articles by this author , and Oliver Wiseman*Oliver Wiseman* More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000557366.75390.dcAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Silicone was one of the first materials to be used for ureteral stents. Importantly, silicone has been shown to be highly biocompatible and less prone to encrustation than polyurethane in a large series of removed ureteral stents. Since encrustation remains a significant concern when stents are implanted, we investigated these properties of silicone through a randomized multicenter study. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, prospective, randomized, single blind, comparative study of silicone hydrocoated ureteral stents versus PercuflexTM Plus, in patients treated by F-URS for a kidney stone. The studies had ethical committee approval in the respective hospitals. Primary endpoint was USSQ pain score after 3-week dwell. Ureteral stent encrustation and biofilm formation at removal was evaluated through a scoring scale (Table 1). Comparison was performed using ANOVA. RESULTS: 119 stents were available after removal for analysis, 56 in the silicone and 63 in the Percuflex TM Plus group. Mean dwell duration was 21.8 days for silicone, 22.1 days for PercuflexTM Plus. Biofilm and mineral encrustations were evaluated through optical microscopy of inner and outer surfaces of tips, angles and along the stents body. There was significantly more mineral encrustation and biofilm (Table 2) on PercuflexTM Plus on both renal and vesical tips and angle surfaces compared to silicone. Mean global biofilm and mineral encrustation were also more significant on PercuflexTM Plus stents. Five silicone stents had no encrustation at all, compared to none stent for PercuflexTM Plus. Two silicone stents had neither biofilm nor encrustation (none for PercuflexTM Plus). CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre randomized study evidences that silicone hydrocoated stents are less encrusted than PercuflexTM Plus after 3-week dwell time and confirms the low encrustation potential of silicone. Source of Funding: This study was supported by Coloplast. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Montreal, Canada; Quebec, Canada; Paris, France; Besancon, France; Paris, France; Cambridge, United Kingdom© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e1156-e1156 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Oliver Wiseman More articles by this author Julien Letendre More articles by this author Jonathan Cloutier More articles by this author Michel Daudon More articles by this author Francois Kleinclauss More articles by this author Steeve Doizi More articles by this author Olivier Traxer More articles by this author Oliver Wiseman* More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.008 | 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".