81 OPEN VS ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECOMY IN OBESE MEN: DO OUTCOMES DIFFER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Evidence-Based Medicine & Outcomes (II)1 Apr 201381 OPEN VS ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECOMY IN OBESE MEN: DO OUTCOMES DIFFER? Chandy Ellimoottil, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Maxine Sun, Adam Kadlec, Kristin Greco, Marcus Quek, and Gopal Gupta Chandy EllimoottilChandy Ellimoottil Maywood, IL More articles by this author , Quoc-Dien TrinhQuoc-Dien Trinh Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Maxine SunMaxine Sun Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Adam KadlecAdam Kadlec Maywood, IL More articles by this author , Kristin GrecoKristin Greco Maywood, IL More articles by this author , Marcus QuekMarcus Quek Maywood, IL More articles by this author , and Gopal GuptaGopal Gupta Maywood, IL More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.1459AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Obesity can make any surgery challenging. Both robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) have been shown to be technically feasible with acceptable peri-operative outcomes in obese patients. In our study, we determined how hospital charges, length of stay, and immediate perioperative complications vary between RARP and ORP in an obese population using a national database. METHODS Discharge records from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample were used to identify patients who had obesity and/or morbid obesity listed as a diagnosis code. We compared blood transfusion rates, length of stay (LOS), total charges, and rates of immediate complications between RARP and ORP in the obese population. RESULTS We identified 68,543 patients of which, 4,507 patients (6.6%) were diagnosed with obesity or morbid obesity. Obese men underwent similar rates of robotic (RARP), open (ORP) and laparoscopic (LRP) approaches compared to nonobese men (61.1%, 37.0%, and 2.0% vs 62.2%, 36.1%, and 1.6%, respectively). In the obese population, we compared ORP to RARP and found a significant difference in the blood transfusion rate (9.9% vs 2.9%, p<0.001), mean LOS (2.8 days vs 2.0 days, p <0.001), total charges ($31,636 vs $45,638 p < 0.001), and immediate postoperative complications (21.5% vs 15.6%, p<0.001). After controlling for age, Charlson comorbidity index, and annual hospital volume, the rate of immediate complications was not statistically different (p=0.34). CONCLUSIONS In obese men, RARP is independently associated with a lower blood transfusion rate, decreased LOS, and higher charges compared to ORP. The rate of immediate postoperative complications was lower for obese men undergoing RARP, but this finding was not statistically significant on multivariate analysis. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e33-e34 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Chandy Ellimoottil Maywood, IL More articles by this author Quoc-Dien Trinh Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Maxine Sun Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Adam Kadlec Maywood, IL More articles by this author Kristin Greco Maywood, IL More articles by this author Marcus Quek Maywood, IL More articles by this author Gopal Gupta Maywood, IL 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".