Risks and benefits of partial nephrectomy performed with limited or with zero ischaemia time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that longer warm ischaemia time (WIT) might have a marginal impact on renal functional outcomes and might, in fact, reduce haemorrhagic risk intra-operatively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1140 patients treated with elective partial nephrectomy (PN) for a cT1-2 cN0 cM0 renal mass were prospectively collected. WIT was defined as the duration of clamping of the main renal artery with no refrigeration and was tested as a continuous variable. The primary outcome of the study was evaluation of the effect of WIT on renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) postoperatively, at 6 months and in the long term (measured between 1 and 5 years after surgery). The secondary outcome of the study was haemorrhagic risk, defined as estimated blood loss (EBL) or peri-operative transfusions. Multivariable linear, logistic and Cox regression analyses, accounting for age, Charlson comorbidity index, clinical size, preoperative eGFR and year of surgery, were used and the potential nonlinear relationship between WIT and the study outcomes was modelled using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: for the off-clamp population. The median duration of WIT was 17 (13-21) min. At multivariable analyses predicting renal function, longer WIT was associated with decreased postoperative eGFR (estimate: -0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.31; -0.11 [P < 0.001]). Conversely, no association between WIT and eGFR was recorded at 6-month or long-term follow-up (all P > 0.8). At multivariable analyses predicting haemorrhagic risk, clampless resection with no ischaemia time and PN with short WIT was associated with an increased EBL (estimate: -21.56, 95% CI -28.33; -14.79 [P < 0.001]) and peri-operative transfusion rate (estimate: -0.009, 95% CI -0.01; -0.003 [P = 0.002]). No association between WIT and positive surgical margin status was recorded (all P = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians should be aware that performing PN with very limited or even with zero WIT might increase bleeding and the need for peri-operative transfusion while not improving long-term renal function 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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".