MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225133980 · doi:10.1111/bju.15764

Upper urinary tract pressures in endourology: a systematic review of range, variables and implications

2022· review· en· W4225133980 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefanie Croghan, Andreas Skolarikos, Gregory S. Jack, Rustom P. Manecksha, Michael T. Walsh, Fergal J. O’Brien, Niall F. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland
KeywordsUrinary systemRange (aeronautics)Upper urinary tractMedicineInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To systematically review the literature to ascertain the upper tract pressures generated during endourology, the relevant influencing variables and clinical implications. Materials and Methods A systematic review of the MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases was performed by two authors independently (S.C., N.D.). Studies reporting ureteric or intrarenal pressures (IRP) during semi‐rigid ureteroscopy (URS)/flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS)/percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)/miniaturized PCNL (mPCNL) in the period 1950–2021 were identified. Both in vitro and in vivo studies were considered for inclusion. Findings were independently screened for eligibility based on content, with disagreements resolved by author consensus. Data were assessed for bias and compiled based on predefined variables. Results Fifty‐two studies met the inclusion criteria. Mean IRP appeared to frequently exceed a previously proposed threshold of 40 cmH 2 O. Semi‐rigid URS with low‐pressure irrigation (gravity <1 m) resulted in a wide mean IRP range (lowest reported 6.9 cmH 2 O, highest mean 149.5 ± 6.2 cmH 2 O; animal models). The lowest mean observed with fURS without a ureteric access sheath (UAS) was 47.6 ± 4.1 cmH 2 O, with the maximum peak IRP being 557.4 cmH 2 O ( in vivo human data). UAS placement significantly reduced IRP during fURS, but did not guarantee pressure control with hand‐operated pump/syringe irrigation. Miniaturization of PCNL sheaths was associated with increased IRP; however, a wide mean human IRP range has been recorded with both mPCNL (lowest −6.8 ± 2.2 cmH 2 O [suction sheath]; highest 41.2 ± 5.3 cmH 2 O) and standard PCNL (lowest 6.5 cmH 2 O; highest 41.2 cmH 2 O). Use of continuous suction in mPCNL results in greater control of mean IRP, although short pressure peaks >40 cmH 2 O are not entirely prevented. Definitive conclusions are limited by heterogeneity in study design and results. Postoperative pain and pyrexia may be correlated with increased IRP, however, few in vivo studies correlate clinical outcome with measured IRP. Conclusions Intrarenal pressure generated during upper tract endoscopy often exceeds 40 cmH 2 O. IRP is multifactorial in origin, with contributory variables discussed. Larger prospective human in vivo studies are required to further our understanding of IRP thresholds and clinical sequelae.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207