Suctioning Versus Traditional Access Sheath in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The suctioning access sheath (SAS) is a novel access sheath connected to a negative pressure suction device and absorbs fragments. Some comparative studies have reported SAS with a higher stone-free rate and lower operative time. However, no higher-level evidence was published to support SAS. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical safety and efficacy of SAS versus traditional access sheath (TAS) for the treatment of renal stones in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using Pubmed, Embase(Ovid), Medline（EBSCO）, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Sinomed to search comparative studies as recent as December 2020 that assessed the safety and effectiveness of SAS in PCNL. The quality of retrospective case-control studies (RCCs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. The Oxford center set up evidence-based medicine was used to assess the level of evidence (LE). Statistical analyses were performed by the comprehensive meta-analysis program. RESULTS: Seven studies, with a total of 1655 patients, were included. Compared with the TAS group, the SAS group had a shorter operative time (MD= -17.30; 95%CI:-23.09,-11.51; P＜.00001), higher stone-free rate (OR=2.37;95%CI:1.56,3.61;P<.0001), fewer total complication rate (OR=0.50;95%CI:0.35,0.70;P<.0001), lower auxiliary procedures rate (OR=0.48;95%CI:0.36,0.64; P<.00001), and lower postoperative fever rate (OR=0.46;95%CI:0.34,0.62;P＜.00001). CONCLUSION: The SAS can significantly improve MPCNL in the stone-free rate, operative time, and total complication rate, especially for auxiliary procedures and postoperative fever rates.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".