Safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in infants.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in older children appears to have comparable results when compared to adults, no study has focused on its use in younger children. We reviewed our ESWL experience in children under age 3.5 years to evaluate its safety, and define optimal treatment parameters. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive medical and diagnostic imaging records from three ESWL centers, pertaining to 34 children under 3.5 years of age (36 renal units-RU). The children were from two distinct populations served exclusively by the three centers. We analyzed patient presentation, etiology, age, weight, stone size, preoperative interventions, energy settings, number of shock waves, number of treatments, success (stone fragments < 2 mm), and complications. We performed all forty-nine procedures under general anesthesia and modified the Dornier MFL 5000 table and the Dornier HM3 gantry to improve coupling and localizing of the calculi. RESULTS: In each population, we noted similar presentations, etiologies, and treatment parameters. Patient age ranged from 6 to 40 months (mean 23.4 months). Stone size ranged from 4 mm to 22 mm diameter (average 13 mm). ESWL parameters included an average of 2210 shocks (range 900-3400) at average of 20.9 kV (range 19 kV-25 kV). Preoperative ureteral stent placement was not shown to be beneficial. Our one and multiple treatment ESWL success rates were 66% and 86%, respectively. No major acute or long-term complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully performed ESWL using treatment parameters similar to adults in 86% of children under 3.5 years without major complications. Modifications of the positioning device improved coupling and localization in smaller patients. Routine preoperative ureteral stenting for large stones is not recommended.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".