Assessing complications from retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is a procedure of significant therapeutic and diagnostic value in the management of testicular cancer. This study aimed to conduct a contemporary review of surgical outcomes following RPLND procedures performed in North America over the last decade. METHODS: We queried the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2012-2022 (n=9 857 040) to identify patients who underwent RPLND and were diagnosed with testicular cancer. The primary outcome was 30-day morbidity. Secondary outcomes included time-to-complication analysis, rate of additional organ resection, hospital length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates. Binomial logistic regression and a generalized linear model were used to identify risk factors associated with 30-day morbidity and LOS. RESULTS: (IQR 24.5-32.0). There were no deaths within 30 days. The overall 30-day morbidity rate was 17% (n=86). Bleeding/transfusion postoperatively (12%), return to the operating room (3%), and superficial surgical-site infection (2%) were the three most common complications. Factors associated with increased 30-day morbidity included: history of smoking (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-4.68) and concurrent vascular repair/reconstruction (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.12-15.46). The median LOS was four days (IQR 3-6) and the 30-day readmission rate was 7.0%. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores that approximately one in six patients experience complications following RPLND in North America. Identifying the timing of and risk factors for these complications can improve physician-patient communication and overall care.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".