Hybrid operating room transition in abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment: Impacts on operative outcomes and complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to explore whether performing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in a hybrid room (HR) has a benefit on radiation exposure, volume of contrast, postoperative renal insufficiency, and complication rate (endoleak, thrombosis, reoperation) in the long term compared with conventional rooms (CRs). A literature review was previously carried out to define the impact of this hybrid technology on interventional performance. Methods This retrospective study compared consecutive patients undergoing standard elective EVAR at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec from December 2015 and September 2022, while transitionning to a hybrid endovascular room. Patients were divided into two groups: the CR group included EVARs performed in a conventional operating room with a mobile C-arm (December 2015 to November 2019), and the HR group included EVARs performed in a hybrid room using a fixed angiographic system (December 2019 to September 2022). Data analysed included radiation exposure (mGy) and contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, acute renal failure, endoleaks, limb thrombosis, and reintervention. Results A total of 314 patients were included (202 in the HR group and 112 in the CR group). Groups were comparable in demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Radiation exposure was significantly higher in the HR group (679.5 mGy) compared with the CR group (244.5 mGy) ( P < .001) without significant change in fluoroscopy time ( P = .103). Contrast volume was equivalent between groups. However, the CR group presented with a higher rate of renal failure (5.4% vs 1%). Adjuvant procedures at the time of EVAR implantation were more frequent in the HR group. Their overall late reintervention rate did not differ significantly. Conclusions EVAR procedures performed in the hybrid suite at our center showed increased radiation exposure, partly attributable to more adjuvant procedures. It did not, however, have a significant impact on late 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".