Complications of low compared to standard pneumoperitoneum pressures in laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecologic pathology: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No definite consensus has been established about the optimal pressure for artificial pneumoperitoneum when performing laparoscopic surgery. It has been postulated that lowering intra-peritoneal pressure levels while performing general laparoscopic surgery would lower surgical complications including post-operative pain, but data remain scarce about significant operative complications. Furthermore, such data is not available for gynecologic laparoscopy. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the frequency and nature of significant operative complications of lower and standard pneumoperiteoneal pressure levels in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery for benign indications. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, randomised control trials registries, and reference lists of included articles. Randomised controlled trials comparing different intra-peritoneal pressure levels in women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery for a non-malignant indication will be eligible. Two reviewers will independently select and review references, extract data, and assess quality from included studies. We will use RevMan5 to calculate risk ratios and their 95 % confidence intervals to compare the frequency of complications according to intra-peritoneal pressure levels. We will perform sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity potentially due to various operative characteristics or characteristics of patients. DISCUSSION: Our results will help identify the optimal intra-peritoneal pressure level in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery and determine if lowering intra-peritoneal pressure levels while trying to achieve lower levels of post-operative pain is an acceptable change of practice according to the frequency and nature of significant complications. PROSPERO: CRD42015020231.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".