MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474752012

Clinical impact of adjunctive donor microvascular reconstruction on renal transplantation.

2003· article· en· W2474752012 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph L. Chin, Sidney Kam‐Hung Yip, Nicholas McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnastomosisMicrosurgerySurgeryTransplantationVeinCadaveric spasmArtery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Microvascular reconstruction was incorporated into our donor organ harvesting algorithm for kidneys with anatomic anomalies or injury of the vasculature. The impact of adjunctive microsurgery was appraised in terms of organ availability and graft quality procedures. METHODS: Out of a total of 441 renal transplant procedures performed by one surgeon (JLC) between 1984 and 1997, 104 allografts (83 cadaveric, 21 living related) required ex-vivo microvascular reconstruction. Micro-reconstruction using 2.5-10 X magnification was employed to create a single artery and vein for subsequent in-situ anastomosis. Side-to-side or end-to-side anastomosis was performed, depending on the vascular arrangement. Multiple vessels and those injured during harvesting were reconstructed with a combination of the above techniques. RESULTS: Eleven kidneys had two or more arterial anastomoses; 12 had combination (arterial and venous) anastomoses while 74 required a single micro-reconstruction. In addition, seven kidneys with severely traumatized vessels were salvaged. Average bench surgery times were 30 and 50 minutes for single and multiple reconstructions respectively. Mean warm ischemic time was 29 minutes. Three kidneys were lost due to vascular thrombosis (two venous, one arterial) where in-situ technical difficulties were encountered in all three cases. With mean follow-up of 30 months, 23 kidneys had been lost due to chronic rejection with the remainder functioning. CONCLUSION: Extensive microvascular reconstruction salvaged 30 suboptimal or previously deemed unusable grafts (30/439 = 7%) and facilitated the vascular anastomosis in another 74 cases (17%). The warm ischemic time and the possibility of in-situ technical errors with small-calibre vessels were minimized. This report affirms the contention that microvascular reconstruction should be available as an adjunctive technique for renal transplantation, to maximize the quantity and quality of donor kidneys.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207