A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Traditional Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery with Needlescopic-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy in the Porcine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery produces virtually no scar but is technically challenging because of the loss of triangulation. The objective of this study is to compare classic transumbilical LESS nephrectomy with needlescopic-assisted laparoscopy (NAL) surgery. In doing so, we evaluated whether the addition of a single 2-mm subcostal port could restore triangulation while not jeopardizing recovery or cosmetic outcome in the porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten female farm pigs were randomized to laparoscopic nephrectomy with either LESS or NAL. In LESS, a TriPort was placed through a single 2.5-cm umbilical incision. In NAL, 5- and 10-mm ports were placed in the umbilicus and a 2-mm port was placed in the midclavicular line. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative parameters were compared. Variables were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and two-tailed Fisher exact test. Cosmesis was evaluated objectively using the Vancouver Scar Scale and subjectively by a blinded dermatologist. A cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: Estimated blood loss was minimal in both groups (28.8 mL in LESS and 9.4 mL in NAL). Operative time was significantly shorter in NAL (103 vs 150 min; P<0.001). There was no difference in complications (2 vs 1; P=0.500), objective cosmesis (3.9 vs 3.8; P>0.2), or subjective cosmesis (2 vs 3; P=0.500). The NAL protocol had significantly lower disposable equipment costs ($363 vs $1696). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a 2-mm subcostal port and the restoration of triangulation in the NAL protocol enable shorter operative times, increased surgeon comfort, improved technical ease, and lower costs while maintaining the scarless cosmesis of the traditional LESS protocol.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".