Risk for Scrotal Surgery After Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A potential long-term complication of living kidney donation in male donors is scrotal swelling on the same side as the nephrectomy, and some undergo surgery to relieve discomfort from the fluid collection. The long-term risk for this outcome attributable to donation is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term scrotal surgery rates after laparoscopic nephrectomy in male living kidney donors compared with nondonors. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study (2002 to 2024). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06716723). SETTING: Linked administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 898 male living kidney donors who had a laparoscopic nephrectomy were matched in a 1:10 ratio with 8980 male nondonors from the general population. The matching characteristics were age, date of cohort entry, rural residence, income, prior vasectomy, and prior inguinal hernia repair. Participants were followed for a median of 9 years, up to 22 years. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was hospitalization for surgery to address a unilateral scrotal fluid collection. RESULTS: < 0.001). The median time from donation to scrotal surgery was 5.2 years (IQR, 3.3 to 8.4 years); more than 90% of the surgeries were hydrocelectomies and were performed under general anesthesia. Over 20 years, the cumulative incidence was 13.8% in donors versus 0.7% in nondonors. LIMITATION: The precise causal mechanism remains unknown. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is associated with a higher risk for subsequent scrotal surgery in male living kidney donors. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".