MP18-08 IRRIGATION PRACTICE PATTERNS DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY: RESULTS OF A WORLDWIDE SURVEY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy II (MP18)1 Sep 2021MP18-08 IRRIGATION PRACTICE PATTERNS DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY: RESULTS OF A WORLDWIDE SURVEY Jamsheed Bahaee, Jeffrey Plott, and Khurshid R. Ghani Jamsheed BahaeeJamsheed Bahaee More articles by this author , Jeffrey PlottJeffrey Plott More articles by this author , and Khurshid R. GhaniKhurshid R. Ghani More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002003.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has emerged as the primary modality for the treatment of renal stones in North America. Irrigation methods and parameters during fURS may impact intrarenal pressure and patient safety, yet there is limited data on practice patterns for irrigation. We assessed this across surgeons in different regions of the world through an online survey. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire on URS practice patterns was sent to Endourology Society members in January 2021. Responses were collected through QualtricsXM over a 1-month period. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Surgeons were from the following regions: North America (US and Canada), Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. RESULTS: Questionnaires were answered by 208 surgeons (response rate 14%). U.S and Canadian surgeons accounted for 36% of all respondents, 29% from Europe, 18% from Asia, 14% from Latin America, 1% from Africa, and 1% from Oceania. fURS was routinely performed by all respondents with 54% performing >101 cases/year. In North America the most common irrigation method was the pressurized saline bag using a manual inflatable cuff (55%) (Table). In Europe, the most common method was the saline bag (gravity) with a bulb or syringe injection system (45%). Automated systems were most common in Asia (30%). For pressures used during URS, the majority of respondents used 75-150 mmHg (Figure). The clinical scenario which had the greatest issue with adequate irrigation during URS was biopsy of urothelial tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, we found that irrigation practices during fURS differ across the world. North American surgeons primarily used a pressurized saline bag, in contrast to European surgeons who preferred a saline bag with a handheld bulb/syringe system. Overall, automated irrigation systems were not commonly used. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e320-e321 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jamsheed Bahaee More articles by this author Jeffrey Plott More articles by this author Khurshid R. Ghani More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".