The Safety and Feasibility of Ambulatory Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Emerging evidence supports the use of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) in ambulatory settings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in perioperative characteristics, complication/readmission rates and satisfaction/cost data between ambulatory and standard-length discharge (SLD) MIPN. Methods: This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023429854). A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted, including studies comparing ambulatory MIPN vs SLD MIPN for patients with renal masses. Studies were assessed for quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative studies, and non-comparative studies were included narratively. Results: Eleven studies were included with a pooled population of 20,548 patients, of which 1,419 (7%) had a length of stay less than 1 day and were considered the ambulatory group. There were no significant differences in the total complication rates (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.24, 1.04; p = 0.06) or 30-day readmission rates (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.35; p = 0.53) between the ambulatory and SLD groups. There were fewer >3 Clavien–Dindo complications in the ambulatory group (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.59; p = 0.0002). Few studies reported average health care cost and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: In appropriately selected patients, ambulatory MIPN is safe and feasible. Future studies are needed to quantify cost and patient satisfaction differences and further identify appropriate patient selection criteria for ambulatory MIPN.
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 | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".