Complications following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a prospective Canadian cohort of 305 consecutive cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has emerged in the last decade as an alternative to open radical prostatectomy for men with localized prostate cancer. The increased cost of this technique has been justified by its ability to reduce blood loss, and to provide improved vision, less postoperative pain and more rapid recovery from surgery, while maintaining satisfactory oncological and functional outcomes. Given the increasing diffusion of robotic surgical technology within Canada and its associated high capital and operating costs, we review the clinical outcomes and complications from 305 consecutive cases performed at our Canadian institution. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 305 patients with a mean follow-up of 30 months was analyzed with institutional ethics approval. All patients were treated and reviewed postoperatively by a single surgeon (SP). The primary aim of the study was to assess the incidence and type of complications associated with RARP in a Canadian setting. Our prospective database captured preoperative, intra-operative and postoperative data and was maintained by an individual independent of the robotic program. We report complications categorized according to the Clavien system. Multiple complications seen in an individual were recorded separately for the purposes of our analysis. RESULTS: Between April 2005 and October 2010, 305 patients underwent RARP at our institution. A total of 70 complications were identified, with 47 (67.1%) requiring only conservative or pharmacological management (Clavien I-II). Twenty-three patients were found to have a major complication (Clavien III-V). Of the 16 who required intervention under general anesthesia, 3 required emergency treatment and the remaining patients underwent elective surgery. CONCLUSIONS: RARP has been incorporated at our institution with an acceptably low rate of intra-operative and postoperative complications. We have found that the database was effective in providing patients with outcome-related information, which in turn helped us gain patient consent with regard to the institution-specific risks of RARP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".