V4-01 OUR SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE UTILIZING POSTERIOR RHABDOSPHINCTER RECONSTRUCTION DURING ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyRobotics – Prostate/Novel Imaging1 Apr 2016V4-01 OUR SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE UTILIZING POSTERIOR RHABDOSPHINCTER RECONSTRUCTION DURING ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY Mona Yezdani, Ben Katz, Sylvia Yu, daniel maas, Alexa Lee, Alice McGill, Kelly Monahan, and David Lee Mona YezdaniMona Yezdani More articles by this author , Ben KatzBen Katz More articles by this author , Sylvia YuSylvia Yu More articles by this author , daniel maasdaniel maas More articles by this author , Alexa LeeAlexa Lee More articles by this author , Alice McGillAlice McGill More articles by this author , Kelly MonahanKelly Monahan More articles by this author , and David LeeDavid Lee More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1805AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES There have been numerous techniques employed to maximize continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), including posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction (PRR). However optimum PRR stitch location remains relatively undefined. We aimed to apply our modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter (M-PRR) in 570 consecutive patients undergoing RARP for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In this video, we demonstrate our technique for M-PRR performed during RARP. METHODS This patient had his prostate removed in the standard fashion as previously described. The M-PRR uses the posterior layer of whitish connective tissue that may by reproducibly seen on dissection after division of the posterior bladder wall during the bladder neck transection, and prior to identification of the vasa deferentia and seminal vesicles. This retrotrigonal layer anchor tissue is in clear distinction to Denonvilliers’ fascia, which should not be encountered until after division of the vasa deferentia and seminal vesicles. RESULTS Patient and intraoperative variables were similar between the PRR and M-PRR groups, and there were no surgical technique differences between the two groups. Weeks to 0 PPD was statistically different at the three month interval (p=0.0466). Mean weeks to 1 PPD was 13.1 weeks in the control group and 11.76 weeks in the intervention arm. There were no significant differences in post-operative AUASS or EPIC scores between groups. Console time in this case was 112 minutes. Estimated blood loss was 100 ml. Hospital stay was 26 hours. The foley catheter was removed 6 days after surgery. By also utilizing preoperative kegel exercises, our patient was continent on urethral catheter removal. CONCLUSIONS Retrotrigonal stitch placement during PRR resulted in statistically significant improvement in time to reach total continence post-operatively. Our M-PRR robotic approach for radical prostatectomy is safe and effective. This study is one of the largest to date examining the effect of varied stitch location at the time of RARP on continence outcomes. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e516 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Mona Yezdani More articles by this author Ben Katz More articles by this author Sylvia Yu More articles by this author daniel maas More articles by this author Alexa Lee More articles by this author Alice McGill More articles by this author Kelly Monahan More articles by this author David Lee 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 ».