MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407007511 · doi:10.1177/17562872251314809

Current utility, instruments, and future directions for intra-renal pressure management during ureteroscopy: scoping review by global research in intra-renal pressure collaborative group initiative

2025· article· en· W4407007511 on OpenAlexaff
Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Wen Zhong, Yun Sang Samson Chan, Daniele Castellani, Naeem Bhojani, Madhu Sudan Agarwal, Theodoros Tokas, Stefanie Croghan, Helene Jung, Thomas Herrmann, Bhaskar Somani, Vineet Gauhar

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Urology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUreteroscopyObservational studySepsisIntensive care medicinePercutaneousNephrologyPerioperativeSurgeryInternal medicineUreter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Technical advancements and intrarenal pressure are synergistic in improving perioperative outcomes during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). Mismanaged intra-renal pressure (IRP) has negative consequences and it is associated with an increased risk of sepsis, bleeding, pelvicalyceal fluid extravasation, and even collecting system injuries and acute as well as chronic renal failure. The cornerstone of a safe FURS is the ability to continuously monitor IRP to avoid elevation of IRP above the normal range of 10 mmHg. Objectives: This scoping review aims to report the current state of real-time IRP monitoring in in vivo clinical studies and the various monitoring methods and technology to understand how this may be best used in daily clinical practice. Eligibility criteria: A systematic literature search was conducted. Only in vivo clinical studies published in English documenting IRP measurement methodologies during semirigid or flexible ureteroscopy for urolithiasis management were included. Results: Out of 1326 retrieved papers, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 2 randomized controlled trials, 2 retrospective studies, and 13 observational studies. Current noninvasive IRP monitoring devices include ureteric catheters placed retrogradely or via percutaneous tubing and connected to pressure transducers, amplified by cardiology-used pressure sensing systems or urodynamic systems, automated pressure-regulating systems, pressure sensing guidewires, and IRP sensing flexible ureteroscopes. The review revealed significant variations in IRP measurement methods, reporting units, and irrigation techniques. Notably, elevated IRP above 30 mmHg was consistently associated with increased postoperative complications, including sepsis. Conclusion: Current clinical studies have only ascertained that increased IRP above 40 mmHg positively correlates with infectious complications and postoperative pain. No standardized values are available to predefine safe thresholds in practice. With the availability of noninvasive tools for IRP monitoring, future research should focus on multicenter studies to establish reference ranges and best practices for IRP management, ultimately improving patient outcomes in endourological procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0220.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207