Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy is safe and effective in patients with extended selection criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been limited to highly selected patients. The objective of our study was to compare complication and stone-free rates after ambulatory PCNL in standard selection criteria vs. extended criteria patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospective data on all patients who underwent ambulatory PCNL at one academic center from 2007–2018. Extended criteria patients were defined as one or more of: age >75 years, body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) >2, bilateral stones, solitary kidney, transplant kidney, complete staghorn calculi, stone burden >40 mm, multiple tracts, or prior nephrostomy tubes/stents. Primary outcomes were complication rates (Clavien-Dindo classification) and stone-free rates. Results: We identified 118 patients, of which 92 (78%) met extended criteria. Mean BMI was 31 kg/m2 and 45% were ASA 3 or higher. Mean sum maximum stone diameter was 24 mm. Multiple stones were present in 25%, bilateral stones in 7%, and complete staghorn stones in 4% of patients. There was no difference in complication (12% vs. 18%, p=0.56), emergency department visit (12% vs. 18%, p=0.56), or re-admission (4% vs. 5%, p=1) rates between standard and extended criteria patients respectively. Of the complications, 85% were Clavien-Dindo grade 1. Stone-free rates were not different between standard (84%) and extended (83%) criteria patients (p=1). No extended criteria variables were associated with complications in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Complication and stone-free rates were not different between standard and extended selection criteria patients undergoing ambulatory PCNL. This data indicates that many of the preoperative patient and stone factors that have previously been used as exclusion criteria for ambulatory PCNL are not strictly necessary.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".