Late 1920s film theory and criticism as a test-case for Benjamin’s generalizations on the experiential effects of editing

This article investigates Walter Benjamin’s influential generalization that the effects of cinema are akin to the hyper-stimulating experience of modernity. More specifically, I focus on his oft-cited 1935/36 claim that all editing elicits shock-like disruption. First, I propose a more detailed articulation of the experience of modernity understood as hyper-stimulation and call for distinguishing between at least two of its subsets: the experience of speed and dynamism, on the one hand, and the experience of shock/disruption, on the other. Then I turn to classical film theory of the late 1920s to demonstrate the existence of contemporary views on editing alternative to Benjamin’s. For instance, whereas classical Soviet and Weimar theorists relate the experience of speed and dynamism to both Soviet and classical Hollywood style editing, they reserve the experience of shock/disruption for Soviet montage. In order to resolve the conceptual disagreement between these theorists, on the one hand, and Benjamin, on the other, I turn to late 1920s Weimar film criticism. I demonstrate that, contrary to Benjamin’s generalizations about the disruptive and shock-like nature of all editing, and in line with other theorists’ accounts, different editing practices were regularly distinguished by comparison to at least two distinct hyper-stimulation subsets: speed and dynamism, and shock-like disruption. In other words, contemporaries regularly distinguished between Soviet montage and classical Hollywood editing patterns on the basis of experiential effects alone. On the basis of contemporary reviews of city symphonies, I conclude with a proposal for distinguishing a third subset – confusion. This is an original manuscript / preprint of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Early Popular Visual Culture on 02 Aug 2016 available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460654.2016.1199322

Simplified hemostatic technique during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) has gained popularity in recent years, although it remains a challenging procedure. Herein we describe our technique of renal defect closure using sutures as the sole means of hemostasis during LPN. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: The kidney is approached transperitoneally in a standard fashion. After the renal artery is clamped and the tumor has been excised, the defect is closed in two separate knot-free suture layers. The deep layer suture is continuous and involves deep parenchyma including the collecting system, if opened. The superficial layer suture approximates the margins of the defect using absorbable clips on one parenchymal edge only. No bolsters, glues or other additional hemostatic agents are used. RESULTS: At present this technique was applied in 34 patients. Tumor size ranged from 17-85 mm. Median warm ischemia time was 23 min (range 12-45) and estimated blood loss 55 mL (30-1000). There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to open surgery. No urine leaks or postoperative bleedings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This simplified technique appears reliable and quick, and therefore may be attractive for many urologic surgeons. Furthermore, the avoidance of routine use of additional hemostatic maneuvers may provide an economical advantage to this approach with no compromise of the surgical outcome

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumors 7cm and above. Perioperative outcomes

ABSTRACT Purpose: To assess and report the outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy) LPN) for T2 renal masses. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of patients undergoing LPN for clinically localized renal masses ≥7cm between the years 2005-2016. Descriptive analyses were generated for demographics, lesion characteristics, perioperative variables (operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), intra-operative and postoperative complications (IOC and POC) and pathologic variables (pathology, subtype and Fuhrman grade). Results: A total of 27 patients underwent LPN for a T2 renal mass at our institution between 2005 and early 2016 of which 19 were males. The mean age was 66 (52-72). All procedures were transperitoneal with 16 on the right and 11 on the left. Median operative time was 200 minutes (IQR 181-236) and median WIT 19 minutes (IQR 16-23). EBL was 125mL (IQR 75-175). One case was converted to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy due to suspected tumor thrombus in the renal vein. Surgical margins were positive in one renal tumor in a patient with multiple tumors. There was a total of 2 IOC (7.4%) and 3 POC (11%) classified as Clavien grade 3. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this series is the first to describe the outcomes of LPN for cT2 renal masses. In our series, LPN for larger renal masses appears feasible with favorable perioperative outcomes. Additional data are needed to further explore the benefits of minimally invasive surgical approaches to larger renal masses

Oncological safety of simultaneous transurethral resection of high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and benign prostatic hyperplasia

ABSTRACTObjectives To examine the oncological safety of simultaneous resection of bladder tumor and prostate in the presence of non-muscle invasive high-grade urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB).Materials and Methods Between 2007 and 2019, 170 men with high–grade UCB who had a follow-up of at least 12 months were included in the study, including 123 with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) only and 47 with simultaneous TURBT and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). We recorded and compared patients' clinicopathological parameters, recurrence, and progression rates during the follow–up period, as well as time to UCB recurrence in the bladder and the prostatic urethra/fossa.Results Baseline demographic and pathological characteristics were comparable between the groups. At a median follow-up of 31 months in both groups, there were no significant differences in recurrence rates in the bladder and the prostatic urethra/fossa in either group (34.1% and 7.3% vs. 36.2 and 6.4%, p=0.402, p=0.363). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of follow-up time, elapsed time to recurrence, or and progression in the bladder or prostatic urethra/fossa.Conclusions Simultaneous TURBT and TURP in the presence of high-grade UCB appears to be oncologically safe in selected patients