1082 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON BETWEEN NEEDLESCOPIC-ASSISTED AND LESS NEPHRECTOMY IN THE PORCINE MODEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Robotics/Laparoscopy/Ureteroscopy III1 Apr 20101082 PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON BETWEEN NEEDLESCOPIC-ASSISTED AND LESS NEPHRECTOMY IN THE PORCINE MODEL Ryan Bowman, Lesli Nicolay, Kamyar Ebrahimi, Forrest Jellison, Neda Mehr, and Duane Baldwin Ryan BowmanRyan Bowman More articles by this author , Lesli NicolayLesli Nicolay More articles by this author , Kamyar EbrahimiKamyar Ebrahimi More articles by this author , Forrest JellisonForrest Jellison More articles by this author , Neda MehrNeda Mehr More articles by this author , and Duane BaldwinDuane Baldwin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.2279AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) produces virtually no scar but is technically challenging due to the loss of triangulation. There have been no prospective studies comparing LESS to other forms of minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare LESS with needlescopic-assisted laparoscopy (NAL) in the setting of laparoscopic nephrectomy in the porcine model. METHODS Ten female farm pigs were randomized to laparoscopic nephrectomy with LESS or NAL. In NAL, 5 and 10 mm ports were placed in the umbilicus and a 2 mm port was placed in the midclavicular line. With LESS a Triport was placed through a single 2.5 cm umbilical incision. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative parameters were compared. The Likert scale (1-10) was used to rate surgeon comfort and technical difficulty. Objective cosmesis was measured by a blinded cosmetic dermatologist using the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Subjective cosmesis was assesed for the best overall appearance. Both subjective and objective cosmesis were then compared with a paired t-test and a cost analysis was performed. RESULTS There was no difference in complications, blood loss, objective (p=0.75) or subjective cosmesis (p=0.48). In the NAL group, operative time was shorter (103 vs. 150 minutes, p=0.008) and both surgeon comfort (7.78 vs. 2, p=0.003) and ease (7.8 vs. 2 p=0.002) was significantly better. NAL had significantly lower disposable cost ($1195 vs. $228, p=<0.01). CONCLUSIONS NAL is safe and effective, enabling shorter operative times, increased surgeon comfort, technical ease and lower cost, while maintaining the scarless outcome of LESS. Loma Linda, CA© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e421 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ryan Bowman More articles by this author Lesli Nicolay More articles by this author Kamyar Ebrahimi More articles by this author Forrest Jellison More articles by this author Neda Mehr More articles by this author Duane Baldwin 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".