Ex-vivo nephron-sparing surgery and autotransplantation for renal tumours: Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We studied the feasibility of ex-vivo nephron-sparing surgery and autotransplantation for complex renal tumours. We also studied the role of laparoscopy in these situations. METHODS: All patients who underwent renal autotransplantation for renal tumour at our centre were included in this retrospective study. Patient profiles were recorded in detail. Operative and postoperative details were also recorded. RESULTS: Our series includes 3 patients. Two patients had complex renal cell carcinoma and 1 patient had bilateral large angiomyolipoma. In first 2 patients, laparoscopic approach was used for nephrectomy. Operative time for case 1, 2 and 3 was 5.5, 4.5, 8 (right side) and 6 (left side) hours, respectively. Cold ischemia time was 110, 90, 150 and 125 minutes, respectively. One patient required temporary postoperative hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: Ex-vivo nephron-sparing surgery and autotransplantation still remain a viable option for complex renal tumours. It offers satisfactory renal functional outcome with acceptable morbidity. The laparoscopic approach should be used whenever possible to reduce morbidity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".