Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus open surgery for the treatment of unilateral staghorn stone, Erbil province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Staghorn stones are large branching stones that completely or partially occupy the renal pelvis and renal calyces. The developments in the urological field have decreased the role of open surgery (OS) and currently percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered as the gold standard procedure for the management of staghorn stone. This study aimed to determine the outcomes of open surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of unilateral staghorn stone. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 76 patients with unilateral staghorn stone who had been treated with either percutaneous nephrolithotomy (57) or open surgery (19). A comparison was made between the mentioned groups (PCNL vs. OS). Results: The differences between the two groups were not significant in term of preoperative characteristics. In addition, there was no significant difference between the two groups for intraoperative, postoperative complications and the rate of stone clearance (P = 0.447, P = 0.180, P = 0.259 respectively). The means of postoperative hospital stay (days) and recovery time (weeks) were significantly lower in the PCNL than OS (P <0.001). However, the mean operative time was significantly less in the OS group (P = 0.018). Conclusion: The PCNL is a very efficient treatment option for staghorn stones. However, the open surgery still has a role in the treatment of kidney stones (especially staghorn stone).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".