Success rate of repeat flexible ureteroscopy following previous failed access: An analysis of stent duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Approximately 8% of patients that undergo therapeutic or diagnostic ureteroscopy will have the procedure aborted and ureter stented due to failed access. The primary objective of this study was to assess mean stent duration prior to repeat ureteroscopy and to calculate the associated successful access rate. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive study evaluated all patients undergoing interval ureteroscopy following a failed procedure by endourologic surgeons at the University of Alberta from 2016-2018. Patients declining interval ureteroscopy, or those with malignant/known ureteral strictures were excluded from the study. The primary outcome measures were median time to salvage ureteroscopy and the rate of successful access of the repeat procedure. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were identified as having a failed ureteroscopy during our study period. First-time and recurrent stone formers accounted for 64 (53.8%) and 47 (39.5%) patients, respectively. Median stent duration to second procedure was 17 days (average 20, range 10-84). Most patients had their repeat ureteroscopy at 14 days or greater (81.5%); 22 (18.5%) patients had their repeat ureteroscopy between 10 and 13 days. The success rate of a second ureteroscopy after stenting was 99.2% (118/119). CONCLUSIONS: Ureteric stenting following failed ureteroscopy leads to exceedingly high rates of successful access at interval procedure (99.2%). The standard duration of ureteric stenting employed at our institution is two weeks. Of the patients that underwent an accelerated second procedure (between 10-13 days of stenting), all had successful access at their interval procedure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".