MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042730884 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.6513

Stone clearance times with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparison of a 1.5 mm ballistic/ultrasonic mini-probe vs. laser

2020· article· en· W3042730884 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brennan Timm, Matthew Farag, Niall F. Davis, David R. Webb, David Angus, Andrew Troy, Damien Bolton, Gregory S. Jack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithotripsyPercutaneous nephrolithotomyMedicineLaser lithotripsyHolmiumLaserNuclear medicineTrilogySurgeryPercutaneousOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: A limitation of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) is the narrow working channel of mini-nephroscopes, typically restricting instrumentation to 5 F or smaller. We evaluated the efficacy of the 1.5 mm Swiss Lithoclast® Trilogy (Trilogy) rigid probe and compared the results to consecutive cases performed with a 30 W Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser. Methods: A retrospective review of 30 consecutive mPCNL cases using the Trilogy and 30 W Holmium laser was performed. A 12-French (F) MIPS nephroscope with a 16.5 F access sheath and 6.7 F working channel was used for all mPCNL cases. The Trilogy was used with a disposable 1.5 mm x 440 mm probe with dual ultrasonic and ballistic energy. The Ho:YAG laser was used with a 550 micron fibre and a maximum of 30 W. Stone clearance time (SCT) was defined by the total time interval between activation of the lithotripter until insertion of the nephrostomy tube and measured in mm2/minutes. SCT included time for fragment retrieval, equipment adjustments, and rigid and flexible nephroscopy during and after lithotripsy. Results: Eleven cases using a 1.5 mm Trilogy probe and 16 cases using a Ho:YAG laser met final inclusion criteria. Three cases using the Trilogy were excluded from final analysis due to conversion to alternative energy sources — two of those were upsized to standard PCNL and one was converted to laser. Mean stone diameter and density in the final Trilogy cohort was 26.7 mm and 1193 Hounsfield units (HU). Mean diameter and density in the laser cohort was 25.2 mm and 1049 HU. The mean stone area clearance time for Trilogy was 4.7±1.8 mm2/minute vs. 3.4±0.7 mm2/minute with Ho:YAG laser (p=0.21). For hard stones, defined as density >1000 HU, the Trilogy averaged 3.7±1.6 mm2/minutes, while the laser averaged 3.1±1.3 mm2/minutes (p=0.786). For soft stones, defined as <1000 HU, the Trilogy averaged 8.9±1.0 mm2/minutes compared to the Ho:YAG, which averaged 3.6±1.8mm2/minutes (p=0.019). No device0related complications occurred in either cohort. Conclusions: The 1.5 mm mPCNL Trilogy probe was comparable to 30 W Ho:YAG laser for clearing hard stones. The Trilogy performed better than laser on soft stones with a HU density <1000 HU.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207