Incisional Hernia After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy—Predisposing Factors in a Prospective Cohort of 250 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The incidence of incisional hernia after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has not been described previously. We report our prospective data in an attempt to identify factors that may predispose to this important complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The information contained in our prospectively collected RARP database was used to assess the incidence and predisposing factors for incisional hernia post-RARP in a single surgeon series of 250 patients. RESULTS: The incidence of incisional hernia in our series was 4.8% (12 of 250 patients). Statistical analysis demonstrated a higher rate of incisional hernias in patients for whom the supraumbilical incision for specimen retrieval was closed with a continuous, rather than interrupted suture. Incisional hernia is associated with a significantly longer length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Urologists should be aware that incisional hernia is an important postoperative complication after RARP. Closure of linea alba with a nonabsorbable suture using an interrupted technique may help to minimize the incidence of this morbid complication.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".