Nephron-Sparing Surgery in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Morbidity and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To present the partial nephrectomy series performed at our institution. Patients and Methods: 147 patients underwent nephron-sparing surgery between Jan/2000 and Feb/2011. The mean patient age was 60.3 yrs (33.2-82.7), and 90 (61.2%) were men. The clinical presentation, pathological tumor features, perioperative complications, functional and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Results: 84.4% of the renal masses were incidental, and the mean tumor size was 3,63 cm. Median warm ischemia time and estimated blood loss was 18 min (11-27) and 220 ml (50-480), respectively. Overall complication rate was 5%. 87.0% of the tumors were pT1, 5.7% were pT2, and 7.3% was pT3. 45 tumors were high-grade (30.6%), microvascular invasion was observed in eleven tumors (7.5%), presence of necrosis occurred in twenty-seven tumors (18.4%), and invasion of perirenal fat was identified in ten cases (6.8%). At a mean follow-up of 60 months, local recurrence was observed in only six cases (4.1%) and the cancer-specific survival in this series was 95.2%. Conclusion: Open partial nephrectomy is safe and presented optimal oncological results. It should be used for treating small renal tumors whenever is technically feasible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".