Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty: Follow-Up of First Canadian Experience with Comparison of Outcomes Between Experienced and Trainee Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) has been established recently as an option in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). We present the first Canadian experience with RAP with respect to operative results and outcomes. We compare the surgical outcomes between experienced and trainee surgeons, with respect to operating room times and success rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients underwent transperitoneal RAP for UPJO using the da Vinci robotic platform. Two surgeons performed Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in 85 cases and YV-plasty in 5 cases. Five patients had RAP for secondary UPJO after failure of other treatments. Diuretic renography was performed at 6 weeks, and 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postpyeloplasty. The mean follow-up was 14.1 ± 8.5 months. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 167.7 ± 43.2 minutes, and the mean anastomotic time was 41.9 ± 14.1 minutes. The mean operative duration significantly decreased with time (P < 0.05). Ten patients needed simultaneous nephroscopic stone management via the pyelotomy incision. The mean blood loss was 56.6 ± 55.4 mL, and the mean hospital stay was 2.5 ± 0.5 days. There were five major postoperative (stent migration, urinoma) and three minor complications that were associated with the RAP procedures. Postoperative renal scintigraphy demonstrated only four cases with persistent obstruction. Eighty-three (94.3%) patients experienced improvement of symptoms whereas 5 continued to be symptomatic. Two patients needed secondary procedures to relieve persisting obstruction. There were no statistical differences in outcomes between the experienced surgeons and trainees (P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In the first large case series of RAP from Canada, we demonstrate that RAP can be performed with relatively short operative times and is safe and effective, achieving similar long-term results with standard open repair. We show that robot-assisted surgery can be safely transitioned to surgical trainees. With its cost and availability, its role in the Canadian system needs further study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".