Fiber- vs. Microwave-based 5G Transport: a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis

Answering a key question from operators, the paper compares the techno-economic performance of fiber and microwave-based 5G transport deployments using vendor’s inventories and real-life field deployment scenarios. Results highlight how microwave gains vary based on the geo-types, the fiber trenching, and microwave equipment costs

Techno-economics of Fiber vs. Microwave for Mobile Transport Network Deployments [Invited]

One of the challenges for network operators is to design and deploy cost-efficient transport networks (TNs) to meet the high capacity and strict latency/reliability requirements of today’s emerging services. Therefore, they need to consider different aspects, including the appropriate technology, the level of reconfigurability, and the functional split option. A crucial aspect of network design is assessing the impact of these aspects against the total cost of ownership (TCO), latency, and reliability performance of a given solution. For this reason, this paper proposes a framework to investigate the TCO, latency, and reliability performance of a set of fiber and microwave-based TN architectures. They are categorized based on their baseband functional split option and the reconfigurability capabilities of the equipment used. The results, based on real data from a non-incumbent operator, show that in most of the considered scenarios, a microwavebased TN exhibits lower TCO than a fiber-based one. The TCO gain may vary with the choice of the functional split option, geo-type, reconfigurability features, fiber trenching costs, and cost of microwave equipment, with a more significant impact in a dense urban geo-type, where for a low layer functional split option the fiber- and microwave-based architectures have a comparable TCO. Finally, it was found that the considered fiber and microwave architectures have almost similar average latency and connection availability performance. Both are suitable to meet the service requirements of 5G and beyond 5G services in most of the considered scenarios. Only in extreme latency-critical scenarios, a small number of the cells might not fully satisfy the latency requirements of a low layer split option due to multiple microwave hops in the microwave-based architecture

Techno-economics of 5G transport deployments

Network densification is a crucial enabler for 5G, requiring the installation of a large number of devices and/or cables for the 5G transport network. This invited paper provides a techno-economic study focusing on adopting microwave and fiber equipment for 5G transport network deployments. Different architectures for low layer split supporting latency critical services are considered

Minimally invasive vs. open segmental resection of the splenic flexure for cancer: a nationwide study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CNN)

Background Evidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes. Methods This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed >= 12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length >= 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate. Results A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p = 0.004 and Gray's tests p = 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray's tests p = 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p = 0.109 and p = 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI - 4.7% to infinity). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference - 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI - 5.0% to infinity). Conclusions Among patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

none65noThe role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.noneMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo ZuinMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo Zui

Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays

The formation of new blood vessels, or angiogenesis, is a complex process that plays important roles in growth and development, tissue and organ regeneration, as well as numerous pathological conditions. Angiogenesis undergoes multiple discrete steps that can be individually evaluated and quantified by a large number of bioassays. These independent assessments hold advantages but also have limitations. This article describes in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro bioassays that are available for the evaluation of angiogenesis and highlights critical aspects that are relevant for their execution and proper interpretation. As such, this collaborative work is the first edition of consensus guidelines on angiogenesis bioassays to serve for current and future reference