MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089244245 · doi:10.1089/089277904773582895

Nerve-Sparing Retroperitoneal Lymphadenectomy Using Hydro-Jet Dissection: Initial Experience

2004· article· en· W2089244245 on OpenAlexaff
Bijan Shekarriz, Jyoti Upadhyay, Michael A.S. Jewett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDissection (medical)LymphadenectomyWater jetSeminomaSurgeryTesticular cancerCancerInternal medicineNozzleChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPL) is performed in a significant number of patients to preserve ejaculation after treatment for testicular cancer. Identification and preservation of the sympathetic nerves may be challenging. Hydro-Jet technology has been utilized for various surgical applications. A small high-pressure stream of water is used to delineate surgical planes, with preservation of vascular and neural structures. We have examined the utility of this technology for RPL in a porcine model and in human subjects. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A Helix Hydro-Jet device (Erbe, USA) was used for all procedures. A high-pressure water-jet stream is directed through a small nozzle with a 120-microm inner radius for soft-tissue dissection. The upper pressure limit (range 0-2175 psi) is set using a digital monitor. The jet is initiated using a foot pedal, and the actual pressure is monitored. A pressure of 360 to 400 psi was used for experimental studies, which was decreased to 255 to 300 psi for human use. Three pigs underwent RPL using this technique. Subsequently, RPL was performed in five men with testicular cancer, being primary in two and postchemotherapy in three. The primary diagnosis was seminoma in one and non-seminomatous cancer in four. The patient with seminoma had a residual mass after chemotherapy. RESULTS: The procedures were completed successfully in all subjects. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Hydro-Jet dissection permitted tissue selectivity, with preservation of vascular structures and sympathetic nerves. The soft tissue and lymphatics were removed with the high-pressure water stream assisted by blunt dissection. The nerve fibers were grossly resistant to the pressure used and were isolated individually. Dissection around the great vessels appeared to be safe, and no injury was observed with direct application of the jet. Lumbar arteries and veins and accessory vessels could be isolated safely. The estimated blood loss was minimal in animals and 300 to 800 mL in humans. CONCLUSIONS: Hydro-Jet dissection demonstrated tissue selectivity using a pressure range of 255 to 300 psi in humans. The vascular structures and sympathetic nerves were preserved. Our initial experience with this device for nerve-sparing RPL is encouraging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207