Preservation of Six Renal Arteries in Laparoscopic Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of more than one renal artery has been commonly observed, and approximately 10% - 40% of examined cadavers have an accessory renal artery, which corresponds to each segmental artery. Thus, it is important to preserve these arteries during para-aortic lymphadenectomy via laparotomy. Here, we present a case involving a patient with ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy with preservation of six renal arteries. Although two left renal arteries were observed through contrast CT, surgical findings revealed two right and four left renal arteries, including blood vessels, which were not identified preoperatively. Moreover, a subtype of the left renal vein was present. In previous reports on gynecological laparoscopic surgery, the maximum number of accessory renal arteries was two, which is a common finding. With regard to en bloc removal in laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy with renal vascular abnormalities, it is recommended to reduce the lymph nodes to the minimum size necessary to avoid tumor scattering, renovascular injury, and surgical field failure. Furthermore, it is difficult to diagnose renovascular abnormalities using only contrast CT preoperatively. Thus, in laparoscopic surgery, whereby the viewing direction of the operative field is fixed, the procedure should be performed with due consideration of the renovascular abnormalities. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2018;7(3-4):76-80 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo505w
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 | 0.002 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".