Retroperitoneal laparoscopic vs open partial nephroureterectomy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic with open partial nephroureterectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephroureterectomy was undertaken in 15 children (13 upper and two lower poles; median age at the time of surgery 61 months, range 5-212). A three-trocar retroperitoneal approach was used. The polar vessels were identified and either coagulated or clipped before transecting the parenchyma using a harmonic scalpel. An additional 13 consecutive children underwent similar procedures (11 upper and two lower poles) by conventional open surgery (median age at surgery 16 months, range 1.5-72). RESULTS: One patient in the laparoscopy group required conversion to open surgery because of a peritoneal tear and was excluded from the analysis. The mean (range) operative duration was 146 (50-180) and 152 (75-240) min for the open surgery and laparoscopy groups, respectively. The blood loss was minimal (< 20 mL) in both groups. The mean (range) hospital stay was 1.4 (1-3) and 3.9 (3-5) days for the laparoscopy and open groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Eight patients were discharged on the day after the laparoscopic procedure. In addition, of those patients in the laparoscopy group who had a lower-pole partial nephrectomy, one had a urinoma after surgery. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy is a safe and feasible procedure in children. It requires a similar operative duration to that of an open procedure. The main advantage to the laparoscopic approach is that it significantly decreases the hospital stay compared with that after an open procedure.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".