MP23-17 IMPROVED OUTCOMES DURING ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY UTILIZING AIRSEAL TECHNOLOGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Instrumentation & Technology I1 Apr 2016MP23-17 IMPROVED OUTCOMES DURING ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY UTILIZING AIRSEAL TECHNOLOGY Mona Yezdani, Sue-Jean Yu, Alexandra Lee, Benjamin Taylor, Alice McGill, Kelly Monahan, and David Lee Mona YezdaniMona Yezdani More articles by this author , Sue-Jean YuSue-Jean Yu More articles by this author , Alexandra LeeAlexandra Lee More articles by this author , Benjamin TaylorBenjamin Taylor More articles by this author , Alice McGillAlice McGill More articles by this author , Kelly MonahanKelly Monahan More articles by this author , and David LeeDavid Lee More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.739AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Airseal is a newer technology utilizing an integrated access system during minimally invasive surgery. Its goal is to provide stable pneumoperitoneum and continuous smoke evacuation. A few small volume studies have compared Airseal to the standard multi-component insufflation system and have shown an improvement in stable pneumoperitoneum and ease of manipulating objects through the Airseal port. In this study, we compare the standard system to the Airseal system to evaluate potential benefits in a larger cohort. METHODS We performed a single-institution, single-surgeon prospective study of 149 consecutive patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy from June 2014 to April 2015. Gas insufflation with CO2 was performed using either standard multi-component insufflation with a 12mm Covidien Versaport bladeless trocar from June 2014 to October 2014 or with Airseal system from November 2014 to April 2015. Multiple data points were assessed including total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and pain score at 0-6 hours, 6-12 hours, 12-18 hours. RESULTS 149 patients were analyzed with 79 in the control arm and 70 in the study arm. There was no significant difference between the study and control groups in mean age (62 vs. 61) or BMI (28 vs. 27). A significant difference was seen in total operative time with 146 minutes in the Airseal group and 167 minutes in the control (p=0.0002) and in intraoperative blood loss with mean of 132 ml in Airseal group versus 215 ml in the control (p=.0031). Pain scores for time 6-12 hours were significantly lower (3.3 vs. 4.1) in the Airseal group compared to the control but were not significant for 0-6 or 6-18 hours (1.9 vs. 2.4 and 2.9 vs. 3.6, respectively). However, across all times, the numerical level given for pain was always less with Airseal. CONCLUSIONS This prospective study shows an advantage to using Airseal compared to standard insufflation. There is significantly less operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and pain scores at 6-12 hours. This is most likely attributable to the stable pneumoperitoneum and improved visibility without the need for bedside interruption with suction or cleaning of the camera. Improved pain scores may be associated with the stable pneumoperitoneum without intermittent stretching of the muscles and incisions. Thus, the results of this study show that Airseal can be advantageous during robotic prostatectomy. Further larger volume studies are required to assess for the utility of Airseal in all robotic procedures. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e268 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Mona Yezdani More articles by this author Sue-Jean Yu More articles by this author Alexandra Lee More articles by this author Benjamin Taylor More articles by this author Alice McGill More articles by this author Kelly Monahan More articles by this author David Lee 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".