1755 PROSPECTIVE COMPARISON OF OPEN AND ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY DATABASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized VII1 Apr 20101755 PROSPECTIVE COMPARISON OF OPEN AND ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY DATABASE Adrian Fairey, Michael Hobart, Derek Bochinski, Howard Evans, Michael Chetner, Neils-Erik Jacobsen, David Mador, Keith Rourke, Stephan Van Zyl, Don Voaklander, Jeff Zorn, Joey Roy, and Eric Estey Adrian FaireyAdrian Fairey More articles by this author , Michael HobartMichael Hobart More articles by this author , Derek BochinskiDerek Bochinski More articles by this author , Howard EvansHoward Evans More articles by this author , Michael ChetnerMichael Chetner More articles by this author , Neils-Erik JacobsenNeils-Erik Jacobsen More articles by this author , David MadorDavid Mador More articles by this author , Keith RourkeKeith Rourke More articles by this author , Stephan Van ZylStephan Van Zyl More articles by this author , Don VoaklanderDon Voaklander More articles by this author , Jeff ZornJeff Zorn More articles by this author , Joey RoyJoey Roy More articles by this author , and Eric EsteyEric Estey More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.1604AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Limited prospective data are available comparing outcomes of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). The objective of the current study was to compare ORP and RALRP with respect to short-term oncologic and clinical end points. METHODS The University of Alberta Radical Prostatectomy database is an ongoing, prospective, multi-institutional database containing information on all patients with a diagnosis of clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in Edmonton, Canada from 1 September 2007 (initiation date of RALRP program) onwards. Between 1 September 2007 and 24 March 2009, 481 consecutive men underwent radical prostatectomy (ORP=110; RALRP=371). Oncologic end points were overall and stage-stratified positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. Clinical end points were estimated blood loss (EBL), blood product transfusion, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications within 90 days of surgery, and health care access (return to the emergency room, readmission to hospital) within 90 days of surgery. All postoperative complications were analyzed and graded according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Secondary Surgical Events Grading System. RESULTS Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. Overall (26.9% vs. 29.8%, difference=+2.9%, p=.558) and stage-stratified PSM rates (≤pT2 23.4% vs. 24.0%, difference=+0.6%, p=.611; >pT2 35.5% vs. 49.4%, difference=+13.9%, p=.183) did not differ between the ORP and RALRP groups. Blood product transfusion (5.5% vs. 2.2%, difference=-3.3%, p=.072), length of hospital stay (3.0 days vs. 3.0 days, difference=0 days, p=.923), postoperative complications (29.1% vs. 29.1%, difference=0%, p=.997), return to the emergency room (20.9% vs. 19.1%, difference=-1.8%, p=.681), and readmission to hospital (2.7% vs. 6.7%, difference=+4.0%, p=.115) did not differ between the ORP and RALRP groups. However, a statistically significant difference between the ORP and RALRP groups was observed for EBL (538 mL vs. 198 mL, difference=-340 mL, p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS This early analysis showed that ORP and RALRP provided comparable short-term oncologic and clinical efficacy. Surgical morbidity following ORP and RALRP is significant and, when standardized reporting guidelines are incorporated, higher than previously published. Extended follow-up of this prospective comparative cohort is required to confirm these preliminary findings. Edmonton, Canada© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e678 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Adrian Fairey More articles by this author Michael Hobart More articles by this author Derek Bochinski More articles by this author Howard Evans More articles by this author Michael Chetner More articles by this author Neils-Erik Jacobsen More articles by this author David Mador More articles by this author Keith Rourke More articles by this author Stephan Van Zyl More articles by this author Don Voaklander More articles by this author Jeff Zorn More articles by this author Joey Roy More articles by this author Eric Estey More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".