A Feasibility Study on Clinical Utility, Efficacy and Limitations of 2 Types of Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheaths in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate stone-free rate, device maneuverability, and complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) using 2 different sizes of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients who underwent RIRS for renal stones of any size, number, and location between November 2021 and October 2022. Group 1 had FANS of 12 French. Group 2 had FANS of 10 French. Both sheaths have a Y-shaped suction channel. Tip of 10 French FANS has 20% more flexibility. Lithotripsy was achieved using either thulium fiber or high-power holmium lasers. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the performance of each sheath. RESULTS: There were 16 patients in Group 1 and 15 patients in Group 2. Baseline demographics and stone parameters were similar. Four patients in Group 2 had the same session bilateral RIRS. Sheath insertion was successful in all renal units but one. Ten French FANS had a higher percentage of excellent scores for ease of use, manipulation, and visibility. Neither of the sheaths had an average or difficult rating for all evaluation scales. A fornix rupture requiring prolonged stenting occurred in group 2. All patients were discharged within 24 hours of surgery. One patient in each group visited the emergency department (analgesic treatment). There were no infectious complications. At 3 months, a computed tomography scan showed that the absence of residual fragments >2 mm was significantly higher in Group 2 (94.7% vs 68.8%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The 10 Fr FANS showed a higher stone-free rate. There was no infectious complication using both sheaths.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".