Prospective Study Comparing Two Techniques of Renal Clamping in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Impact on Perioperative Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare en bloc and artery-only clamping techniques on renal function and perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2003 to December 2008, 205 patients underwent LPN by one surgeon in a single institution. The first 103 LPNs were achieved with artery-only clamping (AO), and the last 102 LPNs were realized under control of the renal hilum (artery and vein [AV] clamping). Renal function was evaluated by creatinine changes, estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and assessment of split renal function using renal mercaptoacetyl triglycine-Lasix scintigraphy. Sixty-two of 205 patients had renal scintigraphy before and after surgery. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding demographic data and renal mass characteristics. Warm ischemia time (WIT) was higher in the AO group: 30.4 ± 8.2 vs 23.3 minutes ± 10.0 (P<0.0001). The eGFR change was significantly lower in the AV group during the postoperative period: 10.2 mL/min vs 13.7 mL/min (P=0.0472). Operative blood loss, operative time, and complication rate were not statistically different between groups. Average loss of differential function of the operated kidney was 13.6 ± 9.2% for the AO group and 14.3 ± 12.3% for the AV group (P=0.8016). On multivariate analysis, clamping technique was not a predictive factor of renal function reduction. CONCLUSION: AV and AO techniques are associated with similar renal function outcomes in patients who were undergoing LPN. In our series, the AV technique was associated with a lower WIT, an important predictor of decrease in renal function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".