First Canadian experience with robotic single-incision pyeloplasty: Comparison with multi-incision technique
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared the outcomes of single-incision, robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. multiple-incision pyeloplasty using the da Vinci robotic system. METHODS: We reviewed all consecutive robotic pyeloplasties by a single surgeon from January 2011 to August 2015. A total of 30 procedures were performed (16 single:14 multi-port). Two different single-port devices were compared: the GelPort (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) and the Intuitive single-site access port (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Mean operating time was similar among the single and multi-port groups (225.2 min vs. 198.9 minutes [p=0.33]). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay in either group (86.2 hr vs. 93.2 hr [p=0.76]). There was no difference in success rates or postoperative complications among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port robotic pyeloplasty is non-inferior to multiple-incision robotic surgery in terms of operative times, hospitalization time, success rates, and complications. Verifying these results with larger cohorts is required prior to the wide adoption of this technique. Ongoing objective measurements of cosmesis and patient satisfaction are being evaluated.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it