Postoperative events and complications of next-day stent removal following uncomplicated percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to longer stenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Options for renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) vary and depend primarily on surgeon preference and case considerations. In our practice, patients traditionally returned one week postoperatively to remove the stents in the office via cystoscopy; however, following uncomplicated PCNL with no plans for second-look procedure, a ureteral stent on a tether is currently removed in tandem with the Foley catheter on postoperative day 1 (POD1) prior to patient discharge. This study compared the number of postoperative events between POD1 stent removal and their longer stented counterparts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review on all patients who had undergone PCNL at our institution from January 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021. Patient demographics, operative metrics, and postoperative events (telephone calls, emergency department [ED ]/clinic visits, and complications) were recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients were included in final analysis: 46% (n=111) had their stent removed on POD1 and 54% (n=132) had longer indwelling stent times. Baseline demographics were similar between the two groups. Number of telephone calls (p=0.081), ED /clinic visits (p=0.093), and complications (p=0.647) were similar between groups. There were three (1.3%) unplanned second-look procedures: two (1.8%) in the POD1 stent removal group and one (0.8%, p=0.475) in the later stent removal group. CONCLUSIONS: In this limited, retrospective study, we did not detect a difference in postoperative events or short-term complications for POD1 vs. later stent removal after uncomplicated PCNL.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".