MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

2022· article· en· W4221015882 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Urology and Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropensity score matchingPerioperativeCuffDissection (medical)LaparoscopyConcomitantUreterLogistic regressionBody mass index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with the concomitant excision of the distal ureter and bladder cuff is the current standard of care for the treatment of muscle invasive and/or high-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). In small uncontrolled studies, laparoscopic RNU has been suggested to be associated with better perioperative outcomes compared to open RNU. The aim of our study was to compare the perioperative oncological and functional outcomes of open RNU versus laparoscopic RNU after adjusting for preoperative baseline patient-related characteristics.METHODS: We evaluated a multi-institutional retrospective database composed by 1512 patients diagnosed with UTUC and treated with open or laparoscopic RNU between 1990 and 2016. Perioperative outcomes included operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay, as well as postoperative complications, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates at 30 and 90 days from surgery. A 1:1 propensity score matching estimated using logistic regression with the teffects psmatch function of STATA 13® (caliper 0.2, no replacement; StataCorp LLC; College Station, TX, USA) was performed using preoperative parameters such as: age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Score.RESULTS: Overall, 1007 (66.6%) patients were treated with open and 505 (33.4%) with laparoscopic RNU. Open RNU resulted into shorter median operative time (180 vs. 230 min, P<0.001) and longer median hospital stay (10 vs. 7 days, P<0.001) in comparison to laparoscopic RNU. No statistically significant difference was identified for the other variables of interest (all P>0.05). At multivariable linear regression after propensity score matching adjusted for lymph node dissection and year of surgery, laparoscopic RNU resulted in longer operative time (coefficient 43.6, 95% CI 27.9-59.3, P<0.001) and shorter hospital stay (coefficient -1.27, 95% CI -2.1 to -0.3, P=0.01) compared to open RNU, but the risk of other perioperative complications remained similar between the two treatments.CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic RNU is associated with shorter hospital stay, but longer operative time in comparison to open RNU. Otherwise, there were no differences in other perioperative outcomes between these surgical modalities even after propensity score matching. The choice to offer laparoscopic or open RNU in the treatment of UTUC should not be based on concerns of different safety outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Urology and NephrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207