Contemporary Rates and Predictors of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To test contemporary rates and predictors of open conversion at minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) radical prostatectomy (MIRP). Materials and Methods: Within the National Inpatient Sample database (2008–2015), we identified all MIRP patients and patients who underwent open conversion at MIRP. First, estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs) tested temporal trends of open conversion. Second, multivariable logistic regression models predicted open conversion at MIRP. All models were weighted and adjusted for clustering, as well as all available patient and hospital characteristics. Results: Of 57,078 MIRP patients, 368 (0.6%) underwent open conversion. The rates of open conversion decreased over time (from 1.80% to 0.38%; EAPC: −26.0%; p = 0.003). In multivariable logistic regression models predicting open conversion, patient obesity (odds ratio [OR]: 2.10; p < 0.001), frailty (OR: 1.45; p = 0.005), and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) ≥2 (OR: 1.57; p = 0.03) achieved independent predictor status. Moreover, compared with high-volume hospitals, medium-volume (OR: 2.03; p < 0.001) and low-volume hospitals (OR: 3.86; p < 0.001) were associated with higher rates of open conversion. Last but not least, when the interaction between the number of patient risk factors (obesity and/or frailty and/or CCI ≥2) and hospital volume was tested, a dose–response effect was observed. Specifically, the rates of open conversion ranged from 0.3% (patients with zero risk factors treated at high-volume hospitals) to 2.2% (patients with two to three risk factors treated at low-volume hospitals). Conclusion: Overall contemporary (2008–2015) rate of open conversion at MIRP was 0.6% and it was strongly associated with patient obesity, frailty, CCI ≥2, and hospital surgical volume. In consequence, these parameters should be taken into account during preoperative patients counseling, as well as in clinical and administrative decision making.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".