- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Terry, Colin"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item 274: Corticosteroid Use in Severely Hypoxemic COVID-19 Patients(Wolters Kluwer, 2021) Rahman, Omar; Trigonis, Russell; Craft, Mitchell; Kruer, Rachel; Miller, Emily; Terry, Colin; Persaud, Sarah; Kapoor, Rajat; Medicine, School of MedicineItem Accuracy of Daily Fluid Intake Measurements Using a "Smart" Water Bottle(Springer, 2017) Borofsky, Michael S.; Dauw, Casey A.; York, Nadya; Terry, Colin; Lingeman, James E.; Urology, School of MedicineHigh fluid intake is an effective preventative strategy against recurrent kidney stones but is known to be challenging to achieve. Recently, a smart water bottle (Hidrate Spark™, Minneapolis, MN) was developed as a non-invasive fluid intake monitoring system. This device could help patients who form stones from low urine volume achieve sustainable improvements in hydration, but has yet to be validated in a clinical setting. Hidrate Spark™ uses capacitive touch sensing via an internal sensor. It calculates volume measurements by detecting changes in water level and sends data wirelessly to users’ smartphones through an application. A pilot study was conducted to assess accuracy of measured fluid intake over 24 h periods when used in a real life setting. Subjects were provided smart bottles and given short tutorials on their use. Accuracy was determined by comparing 24-h fluid intake measurements calculated through the smart bottle via sensor to standard volume measurements calculated by the patient from hand over the same 24 h period. Eight subjects performed sixty-two 24-h measurements (range 4–14). Mean hand measurement was 57.2 oz/1692 mL (21–96 oz/621–2839 mL). Corresponding mean smart bottle measurement underestimated true fluid intake by 0.5 ozs. (95% CI −1.9, 0.9). Percent difference between hand and smart bottle measurements was 0.0% (95% CI − 3%, 3%). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), calculated to assess consistency between hand measures and bottle measures, was 0.97 (0.95, 0.98) indicating an extremely high consistency between measures. 24-h fluid intake measurements from a novel fluid monitoring system (Hidrate Spark™) are accurate to within 3%. Such technology may be useful as a behavioral aide and/or research tool particularly among recurrent stone formers with low urinary volume.Item Randomized controlled trial comparing three different modalities of lithotrites for intracorporeal lithotripsy in pcnl(Liebert, 2017) York, Nadya E.; Borofsky, Michael S.; Chew, Ben H.; Dauw, Casey A.; Paterson, Ryan F.; Denstedt, John D.; Razvi, Hassan; Nadler, Robert B.; Humphreys, Mitchell R.; Preminger, Glenn M.; Nakada, Stephen Y.; Krambeck, Amy E.; Miller, Nicole L.; Terry, Colin; Rawlings, Lori D.; Lingeman, James E.; Department of Urology, School of MedicinePurpose: To compare the efficiency (stone fragmentation and removal time) and complications of three models of intracorporeal lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trial at nine centers in the North America from 2009 to 2016. Patients were randomized to one of three lithotripter devices: the Cyberwand, a dual probe ultrasonic device; the Swiss Lithoclast Select, a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic device; and the StoneBreaker, a portable pneumatic device powered by CO2 cartridges. Since the StoneBreaker lacks an ultrasonic component, it was used with the LUS‐II ultrasonic lithotripter to allow fair comparison with combination devices. Results: 270 patients were enrolled, 69 were excluded after randomization. 201 patients completed the study: 71 in the Cyberwand group, 66 in the Lithoclast Select, and 64 in the StoneBreaker group. The baseline patient characteristics of the three groups were similar. Mean stone surface area was smaller in the StoneBreaker group at 407.8mm2 vs 577.5mm2 (Lithoclast Select) and 627.9mm2 (Cyberwand). The stone clearance rate was slowest in the StoneBreaker group at 24.0 mm2/min vs 28.9 mm2/min and 32.3 mm2/min in the Lithoclast Select and Cyberwand groups respectively. After statistically adjusting for the smaller mean stone size in the StoneBreaker group, there was no difference in the stone clearance rate among the three groups (p=0.249). Secondary outcomes, including complications and stone free rates, were similar between the groups. Conclusions: The Cyberwand, Lithoclast Select, and the StoneBreaker lithotripters have similar adjusted stone clearance rates in PCNL for stones > 2cm. The safety and efficacy of these devices are comparable.