MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416956847 · doi:10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2025.11.007

Retroperitoneal Abdominal Aortic Repair With the da Vinci Single Port System: A Porcine Model Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4416956847 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Toshio Takayama, Hubert Stein, Hideaki Obara, Toshifumi Kudo, Mark Preuß, Rouven Berndt, Sebastian Debus, Takayuki Komiya, Hiroyuki Kaneta, Fabien Thaveau

Bibliographic record

VenueEJVES Vascular Forum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIntuitiveIntuitive Surgical
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)Aortic repairAnastomosisAortic surgeryAbdominal aortic aneurysmAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Robotic surgery is rarely used in vascular surgery but has demonstrated significant potential compared with open or laparoscopic techniques in reports of abdominal aortic surgery. Enabling a standardised retroperitoneal approach (RPA) to abdominal aortic repair might reduce the peri-operative mortality and morbidity rates associated with a transabdominal approach. The aim of this experimental study was to establish surgical techniques for robotically assisted infrarenal abdominal aortic repair using a single port RPA. Methods: Retroperitoneal abdominal aortic repair was performed in four live porcine models by a group of experienced and novice robotic surgeons. The procedures were performed using the da Vinci SP (single port) surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Polytetrafluoroethylene grafts (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Newark, DE, USA) were implanted after aortic resection. Operating times for the main procedure steps were recorded. Results: Abdominal aortic repair was feasible in all porcine models applying an RPA through a single incision with the da Vinci SP system. Creating the retroperitoneal access and docking the da Vinci SP was quick, with durations ranging from eight to 20 minutes. Proximal and distal anastomoses were completed in 26 minutes (range 19-33 minutes) and 31.3 minutes (range 23-42 minutes), respectively. In porcine models 2-4, the anastomoses were patent without haemorrhage, with aortic pulsations confirmed on release of the cross clamps. Porcine model 1 was pulseless owing to uncontrolled haemorrhage caused by left external iliac artery penetration at the end of the procedure, and patency could not be tested. Conclusion: Retroperitoneal single port robotic aortic repair was technically feasible with high accuracy in live porcine models. Anastomotic times were reasonable and surgeon comfort level was adequate, which may enable transfer into clinical routine in the future when true clinical benefits will need to be proven in additional studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJVES Vascular ForumSame topicAortic aneurysm repair treatmentsFrench-language works237,207