F-055MINIMALLY INVASIVE THYMECTOMY FOR LARGE THYMOMAS IS ASSOCIATED WITH LOW PERIOPERATIVE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The size of thymic masses has generally been accepted as a determinant of operative approach, although no universal guidelines exist. Surgeons agree that lesions ≤3 cm are amenable to minimally invasive approaches which may otherwise limit visualization and specimen removal. Although removal of larger tumours has been published as case reports, no studies report perioperative outcomes of a patient cohort. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with encapsulated thymomas ≥3 cm who underwent a thymectomy at our institution from 2001 to 2014, including a minimally invasive approach from 2008. Patients with carcinoma, metastases at presentation, or those who underwent induction chemoradiation were excluded. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the operative approach: group 1 - minimally invasive and group 2 – open. Each was further subdivided based on tumour size 3-5 cm and >5 cm. Complications were graded according to the Ottawa Classification. Results are reported as median and interquartile ranges unless otherwise stated. Results: A total of 41 patients were evaluated (22 in group 1 and 19 in group 2). The median age was 59 (49–68) and 23 (56%) were male. The tumour size was not significantly different between the groups: group 1–6 cm (4–6) vs group 2–6 cm (5–9), P = 0.08. Only 2 patients (10%) in group 1 encountered major postoperative morbidity and there were no perioperative mortalities. There were no significant changes in pathologic stage or overall complications and mortality. Postoperative narcotic analgesia and overall length of stay was significantly reduced in group 1. Conclusions: In thymomas larger than 3 cm, a minimally invasive thymectomy is feasible and is associated with lower morbidity in addition to a lower requirement for postoperative narcotic analgesia and decreased ICU and shorter hospital stay. A prolonged postoperative surveillance is required to determine the oncologic efficacy of this resection approach. Disclosure: No significant relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".