To clamp or not to clamp?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the gold-standard surgical treatment for men with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Surgical techniques to minimize intra and post-operative complications are well established, but excessive bleeding during RP continues to be a concern. The objective of our study was to determine whether additional intraoperative temporary occlusion of the internal iliac arteries combined with a penile base tourniquet during open RP improves hemostasis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 23 patients who underwent open RP between Jan 2014 to May 2016. Eight patients underwent open RP with additional clamping of the internal iliac arteries using bulldog vascular clamps combined with a penile base penrose drain tourniquet as temporary prostatic arterial and venous control during dorsal venous complex ligation and neurovascular bundle sparing. Our primary outcome was immediate and post-operative day 1 hemoglobin levels. Our main outcome was analyzed using Students t-test with equal variance. Results: We stratified participants by clamping type. Fifteen patients underwent no clamping and 8 patients had the combined temporary clamping. Primary analysis of estimated blood loss showed a reduction in average blood loss among individuals with vascular control technique versus usual technique (516 ml and 754 ml respectively, p= 0.021). There were no obvious intraoperative or postoperative complications noted that could have been attributable to the temporary vascular control techniques. Conclusion: Temporary vascular control with the addition of minor surgical techniques during open RP may improve an objective measure of blood loss immediately after surgery.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".