MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368617778 · doi:10.1097/cu9.0000000000000205

Peritoneal interposition flap reduces symptomatic lymphocele following transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: An updated meta-analysis

2023· article· en· W4368617778 on OpenAlex
João Henrique Sendrete de Pinho, Lorrane Vieira Siqueira Riscado, João Pádua Manzano

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Urology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphoceleProstatectomyDissection (medical)Lymph nodeSurgeryUrologyGeneral surgeryCancerProstate cancerInternal medicineComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with intraoperative pelvic lymph node dissection is the criterion standard for surgical treatment of nonmetastatic intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. However, this method is associated with symptomatic lymphocele (SLC), which is an important morbidity factor. To overcome this complication, several modifications of the technique have been developed, including the peritoneal interposition flap (PIF). We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of this technique for preventing SLC and lymphocele (LC) formation. Materials and methods Searches were performed using databases and references from included studies and previous systematic reviews. Only randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized cohorts were included. Primary outcomes were the incidence of SLC and LC formation, and safety outcomes were defined as operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and urinary incontinence. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Pooled treatment effects were estimated using odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary endpoints. Heterogeneity was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistics; p values < 0.10 and I 2 > 25% were considered significant for heterogeneity. We used Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect models in the analyses with low heterogeneity. Otherwise, the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used. Results The initial search yielded 510 results. After the removal of duplicate records and application of the exclusion criterion, 9 studies were fully reviewed for eligibility. Three randomized controlled trials and 5 retrospective cohorts met all the inclusion criteria, comprising 2261 patients, of whom 1073 (47.4%) underwent PIF. Six studies reported a significant reduction in SLC in the PIF group, and 3 of the 4 studies reported LC formation yielded significant results in preventing this complication. The incidence of SLC and LC formation in a follow-up of ≥3 months was significantly different between the PIF and no PIF group (odds ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16–0.74; p = 0.006] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31–0.74; p = 0.0008]), respectively. The safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusions These results suggest that PIF is an effective and safe technique for preventing LC and SLC in patients undergoing transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.291 · 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