Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: The pediatric recipient in a dual‐site program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At our institution, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is done at a different hospital site than pediatric recipient transplantation, whereas open donor nephrectomy (OLDN) is done in the adjacent operating room. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of a dual-site renal transplantation program by comparing the outcomes of pediatric recipients of LLDN vs. OLDN. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of consecutive pediatric recipients (n = 10) of LLDN (June 2002 to June 2005) compared to the 10 most recent pediatric recipients of OLDN (March 2001 to June 2005). Renal function was assessed with calculated creatinine clearance using the Schwartz formula and the following outcomes were assessed: delayed graft function, ureteral complications, acute rejection and patient and graft survival. Results are expressed as median (IQR). RESULTS: When comparing the laparoscopic vs. open group, there were no significant differences in recipient age, height, weight, preoperative calculated creatinine clearance and warm ischemia time. Twelve month postoperative creatinine clearance was 88 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (57-99) in the laparoscopic group (n = 8) and 66 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (60-86) in the open group (n = 9), p = 0.2. In the LLDN group vs. the OLDN group, delayed graft function was 0% vs. 10% (p = 1.0), ureteral complications were 20% vs. 30% (p = 1.0), and acute rejection was 20% vs. 40% (p = 0.6). In the laparoscopic group, one-yr patient and graft survival were both 100%, as compared to 100% and 89%, respectively, in the open group. CONCLUSION: A dual-site laparoscopic donor nephrectomy program is not associated with adverse pediatric recipient outcomes when compared to a same-site open donor approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".