Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with the Use of Barbed Sutures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to analyze the principal advantages of posterior muscolo-fascial reconstruction using knotless barbed sutures (BS) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of principal BS (Quill SRS Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc., Vancouver, Canada; V-Loc Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland; STRATAFIX Ethicon Inc., Somerville, New Jersey; Filbloc® Assut Europe S.p.A., Rome, Italy). RESULTS: We analysed the principal outcomes (operative time and suturing time of urethra-vesical anastomosis, length of catheterization, hospital stay, and postoperative complications rate) reported in literature. CONCLUSIONS: In light of our experience, we believe that the utilization of BS during RARP is safe as the development of a new surgical technique of urethrovesical anastomosis offers advantages in terms of continence rate, length of catheterization, and other surgical outcomes. Other studies (prospective trials) are necessary to investigate the real benefits of BS in comparison to conventional sutures (CS).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".