Post-operative infection with a single-use ureteroscope with real-time intrarenal pressure monitoring vs. all other single-use ureteroscopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Evidence for LithoVue™ Elite Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope (LVE) with pressure monitoring vs. other single-use ureteroscopes is needed.Research Design and Methods This study using US electronic health records evaluated patients undergoing ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy between 1 January 2023-1 June 2025. The primary endpoint was post-operative infection, defined as urinary tract infection, sepsis, and other infections, assessed at 10- and 30-days post-index procedure. Propensity score matching controlled for baseline differences.Results After matching, 208 patients with LVE with pressure monitoring (mean age 61.4; 48.1% female; 85.1% White) and 416 with other single-use ureteroscopes without pressure monitoring (mean age 61.8; 48.4% female; 85.1% White) were evaluated. Post-operative LVE with pressure monitoring infection was significantly lower 30-days post-index (8.2% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.016). Multivariable analyses confirmed significantly higher odds of 30-day infection with other single-use ureteroscopes (odds ratio 2.17 [95% confidence interval 1.21-4.10]; p = 0.012). Post-operative sepsis and other infections did not statistically differ; however, post-operative 30-day UTI was significantly less with LVE with pressure monitoring (5.2% vs. 10.8%; p = 0.033).Conclusions LVE with pressure monitoring was associated with reduced 30-day post-URS infection. These findings support clinical improvement associated with LVE and suggest intrarenal pressure monitoring may contribute to better short-term outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".