MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MP17-07 OUTCOMES OF CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT OF SPLENIC INJURY INCURRED DURING PCNL

2019· article· en· W2941904232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Raffin, Ben H. Chew, Bodo E. Knudsen, Nicole L. Miller, Vernon M. Pais

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiliary and Gastrointestinal Fistulas
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConservative managementSurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy II (MP17)1 Apr 2019MP17-07 OUTCOMES OF CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT OF SPLENIC INJURY INCURRED DURING PCNL Eric Raffin*, Ben Chew, Bodo Knudsen, Nicole Miller, and Vernon Pais Eric Raffin*Eric Raffin* More articles by this author , Ben ChewBen Chew More articles by this author , Bodo KnudsenBodo Knudsen More articles by this author , Nicole MillerNicole Miller More articles by this author , and Vernon PaisVernon Pais More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555432.07297.c6AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Splenic injury is a rare complication after left sided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). A total of only 11 occurrences have been reported in the literature. Although initial observation is often espoused, the outcomes of non-operative, conservative management are not well established and the implications of splenic injury are not fully defined in this context. We sought to describe outcomes of conservative management of splenic injury incurred at PCNL. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of individual patients who underwent PCNL complicated by trans-splenic nephrostomy access injury. Demographic info, intraoperative data, management strategies, and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: There were a total of 6 patients with splenic injury after left PCNL. 67% were male. Average age was 49.8 years. Average BMI was 28.9 kg/m2. The average stone size was 42.6mm (range 12-91). All patients had at least one supracostal, upper pole access done under fluoroscopic guidance. Splenic injury was identified by CT in the 5 of 6 (83%) who had imaging on first postoperative day. All were managed conservatively with nephrostomy dwell time of 2-21 days, none of whom had further sequelae or delayed bleed. The remaining 1 patient (17%) – who had neither nephrostomy tube in place nor imaging post-op – presented 5 days postoperatively with a delayed bleed and underwent emergent splenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients incurring splenic injury during PCNL can be successfully managed conservatively with maintenance of nephrostomy tube for 2 days or greater. Although rare, this complication underscores the role of routine postoperative CT to allow timely diagnosis, particularly in those undergoing upper pole, supracostal left sided percutaneous renal access. Clinicians must remain vigilant for potential delayed bleeding during the first postoperative week and counsel patients accordingly. Source of Funding: None Lebanon, NH; Vancouver, Canada; Coumbus, OH; Nashville, TN; Lebanon, NH© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e257-e257 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Eric Raffin* More articles by this author Ben Chew More articles by this author Bodo Knudsen More articles by this author Nicole Miller More articles by this author Vernon Pais 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicBiliary and Gastrointestinal FistulasFrench-language works237,207