Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Open Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to compare intraoperative, postoperative and functional outcomes of patients undergoing living donor RAKT versus OKT. A retrospective analysis of all living donor's kidney transplantation performed in a tertiary center between 2013 and 2024 comparing RAKT with OKT was performed. All recipients in the OKT group were eligible for a RAKT. A total of 400 patients (200 RAKT and 200 OKT) were included. Recipients were younger in the RAKT cohort (48.0 versus 51.5 years, p = 0.045). Median operative time was significantly longer in the RAKT group (185.5 versus 120.0 min, p < 0.0001). Intraoperative complications rate was similar in both study group. A significantly higher proportion of recipients receiving OKT undergone post-operative surgical complications (p < 0.0001) and major post-operative complications (8.0% versus 19.5%, p = 0.001). Seven patients required graft nephrectomy during the early post-operative period (of whom all were in the RAKT group). Median length of hospitalization was significantly longer in the OKT group (7.0 versus 9.0 days, p < 0.0001). 1-, 3- and 5-years patient and graft survival were comparable between the RAKT and OKT cohorts. The postoperative opioid requirement was not evaluated. Our analysis confirms the safety and efficacy of RAKT in the setting of living donors, in comparison to conventional OKT.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".