Comparison Between Bedside and Traditional Operative Placement of Ureteral Stent for Acute Obstructive Pyelonephritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of bedside placement of ureteral stents in cases of acute ureteral obstruction. However, there is a lack of evidence comparing its efficacy to traditional stent placement in the operating room with fluoroscopy. We compared the clinical outcomes of bedside ureteral stent placement with the current standard of care. Methods: A retrospective cohort study included patients with acute obstructive pyelonephritis from July 2023 to July 2024. Exclusion criteria included patients not requiring hospital admission, absence of obstructing ureteral calculi, and absence of sepsis criteria. Baseline demographics, including the degree of sepsis and stone characteristics, were measured. Outcomes included time to decompression, successful stent placement, and hospital duration. Results: A total of 55 patients were included, of which 17 underwent bedside ureteral stenting and underwent operative stent placement. No significant differences were found in baseline demographics, sepsis criteria measures, stone characteristics, or degree of hydronephrosis between the groups. Patients in the bedside group had reduced time to stenting (216.0, Q1–Q3: 4.5–408.5 minutes vs 319.0, Q1–Q3: 174–792 minutes, p = 0.040) and achieved higher rates of urine aspirate retrieval (100% vs 76%, p = 0.028) compared with the operating theater group. There were no statistically significant differences in the stent success rates (100% vs 95%, p = 0.344) or complication rates (0% vs 3%, p = 0.500) between the two groups. Conclusions: Bedside stent placement offers faster source control and reliable urine aspirate retrieval while maintaining comparable success and complication rates to stenting in the operating theater for patients with obstructive pyelonephritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".