A Comparative Study Between Holmium Laser, Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Shock Pulse in Terms of Efficacy and Safety in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A Prospective Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) occupies an essential place in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. PCNL also accomplishes higher stone-free rates and requires fewer auxiliary procedures than shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS) for renal stones between 1–2 cm. There are different intracorporeal lithotripter devices available. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of holmium laser, pneumatic lithotripsy and Shock Pulse in PCNL. Materials and Methods A prospective randomized study was performed in Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India, between October 2016 to November 2018. Patients of renal calculi and upper ureteric calculi less than or equal to 2.5cms and functioning kidney on the ipsilateral side were included. 300 patients were randomized according to a random number generator. In the holmium laser, pneumatic and Shock Pulse groups’ number of patients was 96, 102, 102 respectively. Stone disintegration time (SDT), stone-free rate, failure rate, success rate, irrigant used, mean hematocrit drop were evaluated. Statistical analysis was done to compare and predict any significant difference. Results Patients were divided into groups depending on the lithotripter used: group A (n=96), group B (n=102), group C (n=102) were holmium laser, pneumatic lithotripsy, and Shock Pulse respectively. No significant difference in stone location (p=0.785),Hounsfield unit (p=0.115),complication rates between the groups. Stone free rate in laser, pneumatic lithotripter, and Shock Pulse were 81.25%, 67.65%, 82.35% (highest in Shock Pulse and lowest in the Pneumatic group) and failure rate were 6.25%, 14.7%, 5.89% respectively. A significant difference was found in terms of stone-free, success rate, clinically insignificant residual fragments(CIRF)and failure rates between the groups(p<0.001). Irrigant requirement (litre/mm3) between the groups is statistically significant (p<0.001) with the highest in Shock Pulse and lowest in the Pneumatic group. Mean hematocrit drop: 4.19%, 4.20%, 5.46% in Laser, Pneumatic and Shock Pulse respectively. No significant difference between Laser and Pneumatic group (p=0.907), but in Shock Pulse group it is significantly higher. (p< 0.001) Conclusion Efficacy of energy sources used in PCNL for stone fragmentation vary in terms of stone clearance, failure rates, SDT, irrigant requirement and mean hematocrit drop. In our study, we found stone clearance signifi-cantly higher in Shock Pulse than Pneumatic and Laser groups. Stone fragmentation volume per unit time highest in Shock Pulse and lowest in Laser. Irrigant requirement highest in Shock Pulse group and compa-rable between Laser and Pneumatic group. The higher irrigant requirement in the Shock Pulse group may be the cause for higher hematocrit drop in this group. Complications between the groups are comparable.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, 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".