MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2942043726 · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000557507.23335.ee

LBA-15 RENAL HYPOTHERMIA DURING PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2019· article· en· W2942043726 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodney H. Breau, Dean Fergusson, Kristen McAlpine, Greg Knoll, Christopher Morash, Luke T. Lavallée, Sonya Cnossen, Ranjeeta Mallick, Antonio Finelli, Michael Jewett, Bradley C. Leibovich, Anil Kapoor, Frédéric Pouliot, Jonathan I. Izawa, Ricardo Rendon, Ilias Cagiannos

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineNephrectomyHypothermiaRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicineKidney

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologySunday Next Frontier (LBA)1 Apr 2019LBA-15 RENAL HYPOTHERMIA DURING PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Rodney Breau, Dean Fergusson, Kristen McAlpine, Greg Knoll, Chris Morash, Luke Lavallee, Sonya Cnossen, Ranjeeta Mallick, Antonio Finelli, Michael Jewett, Bradley Leibovich, Anil Kapoor, Frederic Pouliot, Jonathan Izawa, Ricardo Rendon, and Ilias Cagiannos* Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author , Dean FergussonDean Fergusson More articles by this author , Kristen McAlpineKristen McAlpine More articles by this author , Greg KnollGreg Knoll More articles by this author , Chris MorashChris Morash More articles by this author , Luke LavalleeLuke Lavallee More articles by this author , Sonya CnossenSonya Cnossen More articles by this author , Ranjeeta MallickRanjeeta Mallick More articles by this author , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli More articles by this author , Michael JewettMichael Jewett More articles by this author , Bradley LeibovichBradley Leibovich More articles by this author , Anil KapoorAnil Kapoor More articles by this author , Frederic PouliotFrederic Pouliot More articles by this author , Jonathan IzawaJonathan Izawa More articles by this author , Ricardo RendonRicardo Rendon More articles by this author , and Ilias Cagiannos*Ilias Cagiannos* More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000557507.23335.eeAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To preserve renal function, partial nephrectomy is the preferred treatment for patients with renal tumours. Renal hypothermia during partial nephrectomy has been advocated and performed by surgeons for decades to reduce ischemic damage. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effectiveness and safety of renal hypothermia during partial nephrectomy. METHODS: Patients at six academic tertiary care hospitals were randomized to renal hypothermia or no renal hypothermia during open partial nephrectomy. Broad inclusion criteria were used and patients were only excluded if they were <18 years old, were pregnant, had surgery planned for the contralateral kidney within 12 months, or had cold agglutinins. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was assessed by plasma clearance of 99mTc-DTPA and differential renal function by renal scintigraphy. The primary outcome was GFR at 1-year post-surgery. Secondary outcomes included kidney specific renal function (GFR x % kidney function) at 1-year post-surgery, peri-operative adverse events, and patient reported quality of life. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01529658) and was designed with 90% power to detect a difference of 10ml/min/1.73m2 at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were randomized and 161 (79 hypothermia, 82 no hypothermia) were alive with primary outcome information. Hypothermia and no-hypothermia patients had similar 1-year GFR (89.0 vs 80.5 mL/min/1.73m2; mean difference 8.5, 95% CI -0.4 to 17.4). The overall decrease in GFR was -9.0 ml/min/1.73m2 in the hypothermia group compared to -8.8 mL/min/1.73m2 in the no-hypothermia group (mean difference 0.2 mL/min/1.73m2, 95% CI -5.4 to 5.7). Kidney specific decrease in GFR was also similar between groups (-7.0 vs -6.8 mL/min/1.73m2; mean difference 0.2 mL/min/1.73m2, 95% CI -3.6 to 4.0). No difference in renal function was observed when patients were stratified by median age, baseline renal function (>45 vs. <45 mL/min/1.73m2) or by duration of ischemia (<20 vs. >20 minutes, <30 vs. >30 minutes). There was no difference in surgical complications or quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Renal hypothermia does not improve renal function 1-year post-partial nephrectomy. These findings suggest that intraoperative hypothermia should be abandoned as a method for long-term renal function preservation. These data indirectly support the use of laparoscopic/robotic assisted partial nephrectomy where renal hypothermia is difficult to perform. Source of Funding: Canadian Institute of Health Research Ottawa, Canada; Toronto, Canada; Rochester, MN; Hamilton, Canada; Quebec City, Canada; London, Canada; Halifax, Canada; Ottawa, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e998-e999 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Rodney Breau More articles by this author Dean Fergusson More articles by this author Kristen McAlpine More articles by this author Greg Knoll More articles by this author Chris Morash More articles by this author Luke Lavallee More articles by this author Sonya Cnossen More articles by this author Ranjeeta Mallick More articles by this author Antonio Finelli More articles by this author Michael Jewett More articles by this author Bradley Leibovich More articles by this author Anil Kapoor More articles by this author Frederic Pouliot More articles by this author Jonathan Izawa More articles by this author Ricardo Rendon More articles by this author Ilias Cagiannos* More articles by this author Expand All 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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,292
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,739

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of UrologyMême sujetAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity ResearchTravaux en français237 207