Percutaneous Externally Assembled Laparoscopic <i>vs</i> Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Nephrectomy in a Porcine Model: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) and a novel percutaneous externally assembled laparoscopic (PEAL) nephrectomy in an in vivo porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten female farm pigs were randomized to LESS nephrectomy (5) or PEAL nephrectomy (5). Operative times, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared. The surgeons used a Likert scale to grade difficulty of peritoneal access, port placement, tool assembly, hilar dissection, closure, and overall difficulty of surgery. Scar assessment was performed by a blinded plastic surgeon using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Descriptive statistics were reported as median and range. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous and ordinal variables. A p value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Median operative time was significantly shorter in the PEAL group vs the LESS group (85 minutes vs 127 minutes, p = 0.03). Median Likert scores showed overall hilar dissection and nephrectomy to be significantly easier using PEAL compared with LESS (2 vs 9, p < 0.01 for both). The PEAL instruments left no visible scar at 5 feet in any animal, and only 1 out of 10 scars could be identified on physical examination. CONCLUSIONS: The PEAL surgical paradigm demonstrates nearly scarless outcomes while providing shorter operative times and easier performance than LESS nephrectomy in a porcine model.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".