Feasibility of planned mini-laparotomy and adhesiolysis at the time of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with prior major abdominal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to report our experience on the feasibility of completing radical prostatectomy robotically after planned open adhesiolysis for prior major abdominal surgery with previous midline laparotomy scar. METHODS: We searched our prospectively collected database of robotic assisted-radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed between October 2006 and October 2012 by a single fellowship-trained surgeon to identify all patients who underwent planned initial mini-laparotomy for release of abdominal adhesions at time of RARP. Among 250 RARP patients, five patients fulfilled these criteria. RESULTS: All patients had prostatectomy completed robotically. The mean values of patients' demographics were as follows: Age 61.8 years (range 54-69), body mass index 30.7 (range 24.3-45.3), and prostate volume 41.5 ml (range 30.8-54). Mean operative time was 245 min (range 190-280) and estimated blood loss 410 ml (range 300-650). Median hospital stay was one day (range 1-7). Postoperatively, there was one prolonged ileus, which resolved spontaneously, and one myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic completion of radical prostatectomy after open adhesiolysis is feasible. This approach maintains most minimally invasive advantages of RARP, despite a slightly longer hospital stay. In the best interest of patients, robotic surgeons are encouraged to finish the case robotically rather than attempting an open approach.
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) | 0.002 | 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".