Outcomes of Conservative Management of Splenic Injury Incurred During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Splenic injury is a rare complication after left-sided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Although initial observation is often espoused, the natural history of nonoperative conservative management is 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. Patients and 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: Nine patients suffered splenic injury after left PCNL. All patients had supracostal upper pole access under fluoroscopic guidance. Splenic injury was identified by computed tomography (CT) in the eight of nine (89%) who had imaging on first postoperative day. All eight patients were managed conservatively with nephrostomy dwell time of 2–21 days, one of whom (11%) required blood transfusion. The remaining patient (11%)—who had tubeless PCNL without postoperative imaging presented 5 days postoperatively with a delayed bleed and underwent emergent splenectomy. Seven of the nine (78%) were managed nonoperatively and without need for transfusion or embolization. Conclusion: The majority of patients incurring splenic injury during PCNL can be managed conservatively with maintenance of nephrostomy tube for ≥2 days. Consequences of unrecognized splenic injury may include splenic bleed and may prompt transfusion and/or splenectomy, underscoring role of routine postoperative CT to allow timely diagnosis, particularly in those undergoing upper pole supracostal left-sided percutaneous renal access.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".