Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:We aimed to study the safety and efficacy of ambulatory tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in the management of 10-25 mm renal stones. Methods:We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent mini-PCNL at our institution from September 2018 to September 2022.Ninety-five patients with 10-25 mm renal calculi were included in the study.All participants underwent a CT renal colic scan preoperatively, on postoperative day one (POD 1), and at three months followup.Patient demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including stone characteristics, operative time, hospital stay, stonefree rate (SFR), complication rates, and subsequent emergency room (ER) visits.Patients were deemed stone-free if they had no fragments or residual fragments <4 mm.Results: The median maximum stone diameter was 16 (10-25) mm.Twenty-nine patients (30.5%) had multiple renal calculi.The median operative time was 64 (38-135) minutes.Ninety percent of patients had a totally tubeless procedure.All patients were discharged home on the same operative day, with a median hospitalization time of six hours.Seven (7.4%) postoperative ER visits were recorded, and one (1.1%)led to hospital readmission.The frequency of grade I, II, and III Clavien-Dindo complications were 14 (14.7%), 2 (2.1%), and 1 (1.1%), respectively.The SFR on POD 1 and three-month followup was 73.6 % and 92.6%, respectively.None of the patients in the study required retreatment (Table 1).Conclusions: Ambulatory tubeless mini-PCNL is a safe and effective treatment option for 10-25 mm renal calculi with a reasonable SFR, low morbidity, and short hospital stay.Patients may benefit from decreased postoperative analgesic use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.157 | 0.051 |
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".