Transurethral Cystolithotripsy <i>vs</i> Percutaneous Cystolithotomy for Bladder Stones in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The minimally invasive treatment of bladder stones (BS) in children has been demonstrated to be safe and effective by both transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) and percutaneous cystolithotomy (PCCL). The surgical outcomes and potential complications associated with these two treatments remain uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare TUCL and PCCL in pediatric BS with a focus on long-term stone-free rates (SFR), postoperative complications, and cost-effectiveness. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were last searched on September 12, 2023. Included studies should evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: SFR, operation time, hospital stay, and complications. The quality assessment of the studies was performed using the Cochrane tools and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale system. Results: A total of 397 patients from 7 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 202 patients underwent TUCL and 195 patients underwent PCCL. The results showed that the PCCL group had shorter operative time ( p < 0.00001) and longer hospitalization days ( p < 0.00001) than the TUCL group, and other perioperative prognostic differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: TUCL and PCCL are effective and safe for the treatment of BS in children. Multicenter, large-patient series, and prospective studies are needed to determine the critical value of stone size for selecting the surgical approach.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".