MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402574002 · doi:10.1177/20514158241272717

Multicentre study comparing outcomes of RIRS using traditional suction ureteral access sheath (SUAS) and flexible and navigable suction UAS (FANS)

2024· article· en· W4402574002 on OpenAlexaff
Chloe Shu Hui Ong, Bhaskar Somani, Ben H. Chew, Khi Yung Fong, Saeed Bin Hamri, Vikram Sridharan, Deepak Ragoori, Boyke Soebhali, Ho Yee Tiong, Chin Tiong Heng, Michael Y. C. Wong, Nariman Gadzhiev, Jeremy Yuen‐Chun Teoh, Daniele Castellani, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Urology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSuctionMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: We aim to compare the stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and re-treatment rates in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) using a traditional suction ureteral access sheath (SUAS) with the more advanced flexible and navigable suction UAS (FANS). Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent RIRS using SUAS versus FANS across five institutions internationally as part of an audit. We analysed baseline and pre-operative characteristics such as stone location and density, intra-operative characteristics such as type of ureteroscope and laser, laser, and fluoroscopy time, as well as post-operative complications and residual fragments (RFs). Results: A total of 45 patients were included in each arm, with no significant difference in baseline characteristics. The commonest sheath size in the FANS group was 10–12 Fr (64.4%), while 11–13 Fr was preferred in SUAS (73.3%). Despite similar lasers (thulium fibre laser (TFL) and high-power holmium laser with MOSES), stone dusting (48.9%) and popcorning (95.6%) were carried out in FANS with minimal need for baskets (4.4%), while popcorning (64.4%) and basket extraction (40.0%) were required in SUAS. Although FANS had significantly longer operative times (65 minutes versus 55 minutes), it also had significantly higher rates of 100% SFR (80.0% versus 13.3%), and lower rates of clinically significant residual fragment (CSRF) (8.9% versus 53.3%), clinically insignificant residual fragment (CIRF) (11.1% versus 33.3%), and reintervention for CSRF (4.4% versus 37.8%). In addition, minor complications such as intra-operative oozing from mucosa not requiring intervention (8.9% versus 31.1%) and post-operative fever (11.1% versus 40.0%) were less common in FANS. On additional multivariate analysis, FANS was the only significant factor for higher SFR. Discussion and conclusion: The results of our study demonstrate that with its flexible and navigable tip, FANS proves advantageous over SUAS in terms of improving immediate SFR with negligible complications. By navigating the sheath into targeted individual calyces, fragments and dust are more successfully aspirated. FANS can therefore help to achieve the trifecta of high single-stage SFR, minimal minor and no major complications, and negligible reintervention rates. Level of evidence: Not applicable.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207