A Prospective Randomized Study of Pfannenstiel Versus Expanded Port Site Incision for Intact Specimen Extraction in Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare intra- and postoperative outcome of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with intact specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel (PFN) transverse suprapubic or expanded port site (EPS) incision in a prospective randomized fashion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic transperitoneal radical nephrectomies for suspected renal tumors were randomized for intact renal specimen extraction via a PFN or EPS incision. Operative, perioperative, 1 week, 6 weeks, and 6 months postoperative parameters were prospectively recorded and analyzed including specimen weight, size in maximum diameter, incision length, total operative time, extraction time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score in the postoperative holding area and on the first post operative day, narcotic consumption, time to fluid intake/full diet intake, unassisted ambulation, cosmesis, and wound-related complications. A postoperative quality-of-life questionnaire was also filled out by all the patients. RESULTS: Our series included 51 patients: 26 in the PFN group and 25 in the EPS group. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative parameters apart from a longer PFN incision (P<0.00). First postoperative day pain score was significantly less in the PFN group than in the EPS group (P=0.023). Complication rate was less in the PFN group, although not statistically significant. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PFN than in the EPS group (P=0.01). Mean cosmesis and operative satisfaction scores at week 1, week 6, and 6 month visits were not significantly different between both groups. Compared with the EPS group, PFN group patients significantly will choose the same operation if they would do it again (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: PFN incision has less morbidity, pain score, and hospital stay compared with EPS incision for intact specimen extraction after transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Both incisions are associated with high operative satisfaction, good cosmesis, and a low rate of wound complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".