Minimally Invasive Ureteral Stent Retrieval
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Nov 2002Minimally Invasive Ureteral Stent Retrieval WILLIAM N. TAYLOR and IAN T. McDOUGALL WILLIAM N. TAYLORWILLIAM N. TAYLOR and IAN T. McDOUGALLIAN T. McDOUGALL View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64286-3AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We developed a minimally invasive (noncystoscopic) method for retrieving ureteral stents. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 consecutive patients underwent placement of a ureteral stent with a stainless steel bead attached to its distal end. The stent was later removed by a urethral catheter with a rare earth magnet attached to its proximal end. Results: In 29 of the 30 patients the stent with the attached bead was removed without difficulty or patient discomfort. The single failure occurred in a patient with a large median prostate lobe. Conclusions: Minimally invasive, nonendoscopic ureteral stent retrieval was achieved in 97% of patients. The attractive force of the magnet for the bead was sufficient to attract and extract the stent. No adverse effects of the procedure or the stainless steel bead were noted. This magnet retrieval system is a feasible, simpler and less invasive alternative to cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents. References 1 : The double-J: then and now. In: Stenting the Urinary System. Edited by . Oxford: Isis Medical Media1998: 101. chapt. 14. Google Scholar 2 : Characteristics of materials used in implants: polymers. In: Stenting the Urinary System. Edited by . Oxford: Isis Medical Media1998: 45. chapt. 5. Google Scholar 3 : Encrustation and microbial adhesion on stents. In: Stenting the Urinary System. Edited by . Oxford: Isis Medical Media1998: 79. chapt. 10. Google Scholar 4 : Use of magnetic internal ureteral stents in pediatric urology: retrieval without routine requirement for cystoscopy and general anesthesia. J Urol1994; 152: 976. Google Scholar 5 : The use of the magnetip double-J ureteral stent in urological practice. J Urol1989; 142: 701. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Single-J ureteral stent with a distal suture. In: Stenting the Urinary System. Edited by . Oxford: Isis Medical Media1998: 161. chapt. 20. Google Scholar 7 : Snail-headed catheter retriever: a simple way to remove catheters from female patients. J Urol1995; 154: 167. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Removal of ureteric stents in women without cystoscope. Br J Urol1993; 72: 388. Google Scholar From the Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada© 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byCorrales J, Meza M, Quiche J and Zorrilla J (2018) A Technique for the Removal of Ureteral Catheters in Infants and Children Using a Urethral SoundJournal of Urology, VOL. 180, NO. 1, (295-296), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2008. Volume 168Issue 5November 2002Page: 2020-2023 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsmagneticssurgical procedures, minimally invasivestentsureterMetricsAuthor Information WILLIAM N. TAYLOR Financial interest and/or other relationship with BIU Biomedical Innovations Urology. More articles by this author IAN T. McDOUGALL More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it