Comparison of four transdiaphragmatic approaches to remove cavoatrial tumor thrombi: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Surgical treatment of kidney cancer with a tumor thrombus spreading through the inferior vena cava (IVC) up to the right atrium remains a challenge.The aim of this article was to 1. assess the safety and feasibility of four transdiaphragmatic surgical approaches to the right atrium from the abdominal cavity; 2. to evaluate the feasibility of palpation and displacement of thrombi below the diaphragm. Material and methods: Four cadaveric specimens preserved with the Thiel method to assess each surgical access: 1) extrapericardial T-shaped diaphragmotomy, 2) extrapericardial T-shaped + circular diaphragmotomy, 3) transpericardial T-shaped diaphragmotomy with longitudinal pericardiotomy, 4) transpericardial T-shaped + circular diaphragmotomy with longitudinal and circular pericardiotomy.Different diameters and density of tumor thrombus simulators, placed at various levels from the cava-diaphragm junction, were used to evaluate the palpation and displacement of the thrombus. Two surgeons performed each assessment independently. Results: Approaches 2, 3 and 4 were significantly better than approach 1, regarding the feasibility of palpation, according to both surgeons (surgeon 1 Chi-square 21.56, p = 0.001; surgeon 2 Chi-square 27.83, p <0.0001). Approach 1 also showed a significant higher number of impossible displacements recorded by both surgeons (surgeon 1 Chi-square 19.02, p = 0.004; surgeon 2 Chi-square 20.01, p = 0.003). Only surgeon 1 recorded a significant lower number of easy palpations at 4 cm from the cava-diaphragm junction (Chi-square 14.10, p = 0.007). There were no high-risk complications in any approach. Conclusions: The transdiaphragmatic access to the right atrium from the abdominal cavity is feasible using three of the four surgical approaches. They are an adequate alternative to sternotomy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".