1082 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON BETWEEN NEEDLESCOPIC-ASSISTED AND LESS NEPHRECTOMY IN THE PORCINE MODEL
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Robotics/Laparoscopy/Ureteroscopy III1 Apr 20101082 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON BETWEEN NEEDLESCOPIC-ASSISTED AND LESS NEPHRECTOMY IN THE PORCINE MODEL Ryan Bowman, Lesli Nicolay, Kamyar Ebrahimi, Forrest Jellison, Neda Mehr, and Duane Baldwin Ryan BowmanRyan Bowman More articles by this author , Lesli NicolayLesli Nicolay More articles by this author , Kamyar EbrahimiKamyar Ebrahimi More articles by this author , Forrest JellisonForrest Jellison More articles by this author , Neda MehrNeda Mehr More articles by this author , and Duane BaldwinDuane Baldwin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.2279AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) produces virtually no scar but is technically challenging due to the loss of triangulation. There have been no prospective studies comparing LESS to other forms of minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare LESS with needlescopic-assisted laparoscopy (NAL) in the setting of laparoscopic nephrectomy in the porcine model. METHODS Ten female farm pigs were randomized to laparoscopic nephrectomy with LESS or NAL. In NAL, 5 and 10 mm ports were placed in the umbilicus and a 2 mm port was placed in the midclavicular line. With LESS a Triport was placed through a single 2.5 cm umbilical incision. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative parameters were compared. The Likert scale (1-10) was used to rate surgeon comfort and technical difficulty. Objective cosmesis was measured by a blinded cosmetic dermatologist using the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Subjective cosmesis was assesed for the best overall appearance. Both subjective and objective cosmesis were then compared with a paired t-test and a cost analysis was performed. RESULTS There was no difference in complications, blood loss, objective (p=0.75) or subjective cosmesis (p=0.48). In the NAL group, operative time was shorter (103 vs. 150 minutes, p=0.008) and both surgeon comfort (7.78 vs. 2, p=0.003) and ease (7.8 vs. 2 p=0.002) was significantly better. NAL had significantly lower disposable cost ($1195 vs. $228, p=<0.01). CONCLUSIONS NAL is safe and effective, enabling shorter operative times, increased surgeon comfort, technical ease and lower cost, while maintaining the scarless outcome of LESS. Loma Linda, CA© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e421 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ryan Bowman More articles by this author Lesli Nicolay More articles by this author Kamyar Ebrahimi More articles by this author Forrest Jellison More articles by this author Neda Mehr More articles by this author Duane Baldwin 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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».