Optimal port placement during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Placement of anterior abdominal wall trocars during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) carries the risk of inadvertent injury to the inferior epigastric artery (IEA) and crossover confliction between midline and lateral ports. We described and evaluated a new measured port placement approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The intervention group included patients who underwent LRP with a specifically measured five port approach. The medial 10 mm ports were placed 5 cm from the patient's midline at a level mid-way between the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the umbilicus. The control group had five ports placed at the surgeon's discretion. We prospectively compared intraoperative blood loss, need for port repositioning, and incidence of adverse surgical events. RESULTS: In the interventional cohort patients (n = 112) the course of the IEA was found to be lateral to the medial 10 mm port in all cases. There were no adverse surgical outcomes in this group. In the control group patients (n = 97), three demonstrated IEA injuries (p <0.01) and three required port repositioning (p < 0.01). The mean blood loss reported between groups was not significant (p = 0.70). CONCLUSION: Our specifically measured port placement approach predictably allowed for the placement of the trocar medial to the IEA. This minimized the risk of injury to the IEA, allowed for adequate instrument manipulation and minimized the need to reposition ports.
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".