Background: There is a need to reliably render urolithiasis patients completely stone free with minimal morbidity. We report on the initial safety and feasibility with steerable ureteroscopic renal evacuation (SURE) in a prospective study using basket extraction as a comparison. Materials and Methods: A pilot randomized controlled study was conducted comparing SURE with basket extraction postlaser lithotripsy. SURE is performed using the CVAC™ Aspiration System, a steerable catheter (with introducer). The safety and feasibility of steering CVAC throughout the collecting system under fluoroscopy and aspirating stone fragments as it was designed to do were evaluated. Fluoroscopy time, change in hemoglobin, adverse events through 30 days, total and proportion of stone volume removed at 1 day, intraoperative stone removal rate, and stone-free rate (SFR) at 30 days through CT were compared. Results: Seventeen patients were treated (n = 9 SURE, n = 8 Basket). Baseline demographics and stone parameters were not significantly different between groups. One adverse event occurred in each group (self-limiting ileus for SURE and urinary tract infection for Basket). No mucosal injury and no contrast extravasation were observed in either group. The CVAC catheter was steered throughout the collecting system and aspirated fragments. There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time, procedure time, change in hemoglobin, or stone removal rate between groups. SURE removed more and a greater proportion of stone volume at day 1 vs baskets (202 mm3 vs 91 mm3, p < 0.01 and 84% vs 56%, p = 0.022). SURE achieved 100% SFR at 30 days vs 75% for baskets, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.20). Conclusions: This initial study suggests SURE is safe, feasible, and may be more effective in stone removal postlaser lithotripsy compared to basketing. More development is needed, and larger clinical studies are underway.

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.