Evaluating the safety of bipolar nephrostomy tract cauterization “BNTC” towards a safe tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the safety and effectiveness of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) after tract inspection and bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders. Patients who were scheduled for PCNL were screened for enrollment in this prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups; Group 1 received tubeless PCNL with endoscopic inspection of the access tract using bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders only, while Group 2 had a nephrostomy tube was inserted without tract inspection. We excluded patients with multiple tracts, stone clearance failure, and significant collecting system perforation. We recorded blood loss, hemoglobin drop after 6 h, postoperative analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and the need for angioembolization. A total of 110 patients completed the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in in terms of demographic characteristics. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the mean decrease in hemoglobin after 6 h and the frequency of blood transfusion. However, the incidence of hematuria within the first 6 h (p = 0.008), postoperative pain scale (p = 0.0001), the rate of analgesia requirement (p = 0.0001) and prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.0001) were significantly higher in Group 2. Only 9 cases of tract screened patients (16% of group 1) required cauterization. Tubeless PCNL with tract inspection and cauterization of bleeders can provide a safer tubeless PCNL with less postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and same-day discharge.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".