Ureteral avulsion during contemporary ureteroscopic stone management: "the scabbard avulsion"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ureteral avulsion during ureteroscopic stone management is extremely rare. To date, many publications reporting avulsion have been associated with "blind basket extraction" under fluoroscopy and the use of the Dormia stone basket. Fortunately, despite the significant rise in the numbers of ureteroscopic cases being performed, the rate of ureteral avulsion remains low. This is likely in part because of improvements in ureteroscope technology and stone manipulation devices. We present three recent cases of ureteral avulsion referred to our center for further management. To our knowledge, these cases represent the first published description of avulsion where the ureteroscope became wedged in the intramural ureter, resulting in full-length avulsion of the ureter. The avulsion occurs both proximally and distally with a resultant length of ureter left attached to the ureteroscope. We dub this mechanism the "scabbard" avulsion. We describe the most likely mechanism of this injury, with suggestions on how to prevent it and how to release the ureteroscope should it become wedged in the intramural ureter.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".