1755 PROSPECTIVE COMPARISON OF OPEN AND ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY DATABASE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized VII1 Apr 20101755 PROSPECTIVE COMPARISON OF OPEN AND ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY DATABASE Adrian Fairey, Michael Hobart, Derek Bochinski, Howard Evans, Michael Chetner, Neils-Erik Jacobsen, David Mador, Keith Rourke, Stephan Van Zyl, Don Voaklander, Jeff Zorn, Joey Roy, and Eric Estey Adrian FaireyAdrian Fairey More articles by this author , Michael HobartMichael Hobart More articles by this author , Derek BochinskiDerek Bochinski More articles by this author , Howard EvansHoward Evans More articles by this author , Michael ChetnerMichael Chetner More articles by this author , Neils-Erik JacobsenNeils-Erik Jacobsen More articles by this author , David MadorDavid Mador More articles by this author , Keith RourkeKeith Rourke More articles by this author , Stephan Van ZylStephan Van Zyl More articles by this author , Don VoaklanderDon Voaklander More articles by this author , Jeff ZornJeff Zorn More articles by this author , Joey RoyJoey Roy More articles by this author , and Eric EsteyEric Estey More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.1604AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Limited prospective data are available comparing outcomes of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). The objective of the current study was to compare ORP and RALRP with respect to short-term oncologic and clinical end points. METHODS The University of Alberta Radical Prostatectomy database is an ongoing, prospective, multi-institutional database containing information on all patients with a diagnosis of clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in Edmonton, Canada from 1 September 2007 (initiation date of RALRP program) onwards. Between 1 September 2007 and 24 March 2009, 481 consecutive men underwent radical prostatectomy (ORP=110; RALRP=371). Oncologic end points were overall and stage-stratified positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. Clinical end points were estimated blood loss (EBL), blood product transfusion, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications within 90 days of surgery, and health care access (return to the emergency room, readmission to hospital) within 90 days of surgery. All postoperative complications were analyzed and graded according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Secondary Surgical Events Grading System. RESULTS Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. Overall (26.9% vs. 29.8%, difference=+2.9%, p=.558) and stage-stratified PSM rates (≤pT2 23.4% vs. 24.0%, difference=+0.6%, p=.611; >pT2 35.5% vs. 49.4%, difference=+13.9%, p=.183) did not differ between the ORP and RALRP groups. Blood product transfusion (5.5% vs. 2.2%, difference=-3.3%, p=.072), length of hospital stay (3.0 days vs. 3.0 days, difference=0 days, p=.923), postoperative complications (29.1% vs. 29.1%, difference=0%, p=.997), return to the emergency room (20.9% vs. 19.1%, difference=-1.8%, p=.681), and readmission to hospital (2.7% vs. 6.7%, difference=+4.0%, p=.115) did not differ between the ORP and RALRP groups. However, a statistically significant difference between the ORP and RALRP groups was observed for EBL (538 mL vs. 198 mL, difference=-340 mL, p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS This early analysis showed that ORP and RALRP provided comparable short-term oncologic and clinical efficacy. Surgical morbidity following ORP and RALRP is significant and, when standardized reporting guidelines are incorporated, higher than previously published. Extended follow-up of this prospective comparative cohort is required to confirm these preliminary findings. Edmonton, Canada© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e678 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Adrian Fairey More articles by this author Michael Hobart More articles by this author Derek Bochinski More articles by this author Howard Evans More articles by this author Michael Chetner More articles by this author Neils-Erik Jacobsen More articles by this author David Mador More articles by this author Keith Rourke More articles by this author Stephan Van Zyl More articles by this author Don Voaklander More articles by this author Jeff Zorn More articles by this author Joey Roy More articles by this author Eric Estey More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».