{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037917959324370906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013788348845225784, 'mean_word_length': 5.214132762312634, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Syngeneic islet transplantations into the submandibular gland of mice.

mined. Most notably, SS-LDN was associated with greater cost than MS-LDN, primarily due to equipment costs. Only one other recent study evaluated costs. They similarly found single-site nephrectomy to be more expensive (9). Cosmetic improvements are one potential benefit to SS-LDN. A small study evaluating subjective outcomes did note improved patient satisfaction with cosmesis; however, both MS-LDN and SS-LDN recipients were equally willing to recommend donation (5). One could argue that increased donor enthusiasm would annul increased cost, but based on the limited data, no definitive statement can be made as to potential increases in donor availability. This was a small retrospective analysis of immediate perioperative outcomes and was, thus, limited; however, no definitive advantages were observed. Surprisingly, operative times were slightly shorter for SS-LDN. This was likely due to proficiency bias, as three surgeons performed MS-LDN. In contrast, SS-LDNs were performed by a single surgeon, whose operative times tended to be shorter. When only this surgeon was evaluated, differences were negated (OR time MS-LDN 176.5 hr, range 126–220 hr, P 0.49). Postoperative analgesia was also slightly less after SSLDN. The increase after MS-LDN was primarily due to an outlier who developed pulmonary edema, requiring intubation and continuous opioid infusion. Removal of this outlier nearly negates the advantage (22.5 mg, range 0 – 82.5 mg, P 0.36). Increased infection rates after MSLDN likely represent selection bias. Both patients with infection had BMI more than 30 kg/m, whereas all SSLDN recipients had BMI less than 30 kg/m. Thus, SS-LDN offers comparable results with MS-LDN. Only one published study comparatively evaluates SS-LDN with MSLDN. A matched-pair comparison of 18 SS-LDN recipients demonstrates equivalent patient satisfaction, slightly shorter convalescence, and improved cosmesis; however, warm ischemia was increased compared with conventional MS-LDN. In addition, overall satisfaction for either procedure was similar (5). Several small series have evaluated single-site simple nephrectomy (8, 9). Similar to our series, one demonstrated no improvement in operative time or analgesia (8). Another small prospective study did note decreased analgesia and shorter convalescence after single-site nephrectomy; however, patients accrued $1200 greater intraoperative charges (9). Overall, these studies combined with the present data do not profoundly advocate SS-LDN, unless higher procedure costs can be justified by actual increased donor participation. Unlike advantages of laparoscopic over open nephrectomy, advances afforded by SSLDN are marginal at best. Cosmesis may be improved, but large-scale prospective randomized trials are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.