Comparative Study Assessing Postoperative Renal Loss Using Two Different Partial Nephrectomy Techniques: Off-Clamp versus Standard On-Clamp Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a case-matched study comparing postoperative renal function using two surgical techniques: an off-clamp partial nephrectomy (PN) with the aid of the Altrus® device and a standard on-clamp laparoscopic PN. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 36 patients underwent PN. Eighteen had the off-clamp technique and 18 had the standard laparoscopic on-clamp PN. Demographic, clinical, radiological, and perioperative data were collected for analysis. An emphasis on renal function was made by analyzing both the perioperative and follow-up with estimated glomerular filtration rate and MAG3. RESULTS: The median values did not signifcantly differ for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and hospital stay in the off-clamp versus on-clamp PN [62.5 (interquartile range, IQR 11) vs. 60 (IQR 16) years, 4 (IQR 2) vs. 5 (IQR 2) and 5 (IQR 1) vs. 4 (IQR 2) days], respectively. The median diameter of the tumors was 33 (IQR 23) versus 41 (IQR 28) mm (p = 0.63), with median R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores of 7 (IQR 2) versus 7 (IQR 2) (p = 0.33). There was greater blood loss in the Altrus® (375 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.037). The clamp time in the on-clamp group was 30 (IQR 6) minutes (range 22-68 minutes) compared to 0 minutes in the off-clamp group. There was no difference in hemoglobin or creatinine levels between the groups. However, the on-clamp group had a significant loss in ipsilateral renal function on the MAG3 scan (49 vs. 42%, p = 0.0001), whereas the off-clamp group had no difference (48 vs. 46%, p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: The off-clamp method for PN is a feasible and safe option with better preservation of ipsilateral renal function when compared with on-clamp PN in the treatment of small renal masses.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".