Comparative Evaluation of Outcomes After Standard versus “Modified Large PCNL”- Is Larger Better…?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To comparatively evaluate the outcomes of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus a 36 Fr PCNL in terms of operative time, complications, hospital stay, and stone free rates. Patients and Methods The data of 125 PCNL cases, out of the 168 PCNLs done from January 2014 to December 2015, was retrospectively analyzed within two subsets, namely group-A (standard PCNL with 22-32 Fr Amplatz) and group-B (modified large PCNL with 36 Fr Amplatz). The demographic profile, stone characteristics, operative and laboratory parameters, and stone clearance rate were analyzed to determine the safety and efficacy of the modified large PCNL as against standard PCNL. Results Group-A comprised 88 patients with 100 renal units, while group-B comprised 37 patients with 45 renal units. The mean age of the patients in Group-A was 49.1 + 13.1 years, and in Group-B was 52.4 + 11.4 years (range 25-84 years) with a male to female ratio of 4:1. 54.5% and 75.7% unilaterally intervened, group-A and group-B patients respectively, required < 90 minutes for the procedure. Nine patients (10.2%) each of unilaterally and bilaterally intervened group-A cases had an operative time that exceeded 120 minutes compared to only two (5.4%) bilaterally intervened group-B cases. For patients with stone burden >1000 mm2, there was statistically significant (p = < 0.0001) higher complete stone clearance rates with the 36Fr PCNL compared to standard PCNL. Conclusion Our retrospective analysis revealed that 36 Fr PCNL is safe and efficacious in carefully selected patients with large stone burdens providing the advantage of better stone-free rates, less operative time, lesser need for additional punctures without increasing blood transfusion and complications rates. However, more extensive prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm this perceived benefit.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".